Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324

Poreklo
Serbian private genetic portal Poreklo(Порекло) as RS for origin, genetic, history etc information's?
 * Портал Порекло основан је 1. фебруара 2012. са идејом да постане свеобухватна база података о пореклу презимена, имена, насеља и становништва у местима Србије, као и на целом простору бивше Југославије. The portal Poreklo was founded on February 1, 2012 with the idea of becoming a comprehensive database on the origin of surnames, names, settlements and populations in places in Serbia, as well as in the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia. Mikola22 (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe surname etymology, but not much else, I would say. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Who edits it, who writes for it, what is is reputation among academics?Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Portal Poreklo osnovala je grupa entuzijasta okupljena u Društvu srpskih rodoslovaca „Poreklo”, sa sedištem u Beogradu. The Poreklo portal was founded by a group of enthusiasts gathered in the Association of Serbian Genealogists "Poreklo", based in Belgrade. Who edits it, writes or whether has reputation among academics, I don't know anything about that. As for reputation among academics I don’t think it exists in the sense that someone use portal Poreklo as source in some scientific work. Mikola22 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So just another web site, not sure its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a list of contributors in impressum part that includes доц. др Душан Кецкаревић- docent in biochemistry and molecular biology at university of Belgrade,др. Ивица Тодоровић- ethnologist, др Бојана Панић- molecular biologist, др Милош Тимотијевић- historian, Борисав Челиковић also a historian and etc., people with PHD and with scientific research behind them. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 24. December 2020 (UTC)
 * and on its about page (and can we please type English translations of names, ect) "Collects and processes scientific, professional, but also lay literature", so it is not only by experts. "Conducts conversations with individuals, who are the guardians and transmitters of folklore", that reads like they carry out and publish their own work (so maybe SPS issue). IN fact they look like a advocacy group. Nor can I see a list of contributors (or any editorial policy).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Editorial policy is under Statut part of the page []. Regarding names доц. др Душан Кецкаревић -doc.dr Dusan Keckarevic, др. Ивица Тодоровић - Dr. Ivica Todorovic, др Бојана Панић -Dr. Bojana Panic, др Милош Тимотијевић - Dr. Milos Timotijevic, Борисав Челиковић- Borisav Celikovic. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 24. December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) A number of European portal on genetics are "private", like that means it's something bad or suspicious. 2) They have a number of people with PhD in their ranks and have done the best job when it comes to scale of samples and the general studies of heritage of ethnic groups on the Balkans. Work done by Poreklo is far superior then any other project in former Yugoslavia. 3) Authors associated with Poreklo have published noted books and capital works. For example:  3.1) Poreko has also published large studies/books on their main topic of expertise.  3.2) A tool developed by Poreklo members "Nevgen" is used all around the world and it largely contributed to their reputation and funding.  4) They have also published online a number of great books on ethnology etc.  5) They work with a number of scientists and NGOs, which is also mentioned here.  6) Most of the articles written by Poreklo members are based on reliable sources and use multiple citations, as any decent study/work should.  All in all - quite the RS. Cheers,  Sadkσ   (talk is cheap)  00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Eupedia is also European portal on genetics and it is not RS, see discusion 2) If they have some people with PhD in their ranks it does not mean that  portal itself is RS. We cite information's from that portal and not information's from their books which are also located outside portal. Their books are not published by portal Poreklo, in first case it is "Издавачка кућа Прометеј"(The publishing house Prometheus) and second case is book of some associate with not much information about the book or author. 3) Same answer as for 2), also Jovica-Krtinić(main editor of portal Poreklo) author of that "studies/book" is not a scientist, he is from (Milutin Bojić’s Library, Belgrade, Serbia and Society of Serbian Genealogists Poreklo). Tool developed by Poreklo members "Nevgen" is developed by anonymous private person which is also used by some foreign scientists.  4) They(portal) published nothing, they are just one of the media which has and books on their portal that also exist and elsewhere. 5) They collect raw genetic data from private individuals and this information can be useful for some scientists but that does not mean that the portal itself or information's from that portal are RS. 6) We do not know who edits the texts or what some texts are based on, many texts are written by private individuals also.
 * We also have WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NONFREE issues with this source in rules and conditions of using the Serbian DNA project(genetic results and information's) because "Article 2: It is not allowed to publish results from a Serbian DNA project without obtaining the consent of the Serbian DNA project editorial board", "Article 3: It is not permitted to visualize parts of the project in electronic media (on television and the Internet) without obtaining the consent of the Serbian DNA project editorial board" and "Article 5: It is not allowed to use data from the Serbian DNA project for commercial purposes". "Non-commercial use only" license is not supported on Wikipedia and that's what Article 5 is about.


 * Therefore this source is not and cannot be RS. Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with specially if this is used for a dispute like we have on [] page that unnecessary lasts few days long, in that case site poreklo is equally realible as portal Hrcak.hr in which we have whole different types of contributors some of them are with PHD some of them are without like the author, site poreklo should not be dismissed so easily because it is more reliable than some other sources User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hrčak je centralni portal koji na jednom mjestu okuplja hrvatske znanstvene i stručne časopise koji nude otvoreni pristup svojim radovima(Hrčak is a central portal that brings together Croatian scientific and professional journals that offer open access to their works) while portal Poreklo is some private genetic portal used as RS. Hrcak.hr is not RS he only transfers various sources. Mikola22 (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which means that every article in Hrcak.hr should be individually looked and valued to see does it present some sort of advocacy or not. And like you written above it is not just presented by scientist there are number of different contributors, therefore it doesn't present more RS than "some" other site. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)
 * You must not delete information from the article(Josif Pančić) without discussion on talk page or if exist some problem with some source you must discuss it here by opening a new topic. I did not delete the previous two sources, although they had problems. The Croatian source has not had any problems so far and I don't think he will in the future, so please return information to the article. This way of disruptive editing it will only bring you to punishment or block, because we must respect source and information from source. Mikola22 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It will not block me because a) the source you contributed does not say anything about his origin, b) As we can it has same issues like here discussed source and it doesn't mean that it will not have problems in future specially if it is misused c) It appears there is number of editors disagreeing with you and d) by restoring just one part of information and ignoring some other sources that were not marked as unreliable shows lack of WP:GOODFAITH, my suggestion is that you find international neutral source from well sourced authors, you can restore it to a previous edit from senior editor Slatersteven or you can leave it like left it until we find more reliable neutral source. You could also cooperate with user Aeengath to reach a consensus.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)

A superficial attempt to give some validity to Poreklo.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  03:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not a reliable source. If you are using this type of controversial source in a controversial article, it should be a recognized source whose claims to reliability can be verified some place other than their own website. They don't have established reputations for fact-checking and are usually contradicted by equally weighty sources from other, rival nations. We should shut the door on endless disputes about which of these sources we should ban, which is where this is heading - see Sadko's comment: "Work done by Poreklo is far superior then any other project in former Yugoslavia." and Theonewithreason "poreklo should not be dismissed so easily because it is more reliable than some other sources". Unless this work is of broader academic interest and merit, which can be shown by citations in mainstream scholarship, I don't see this project as the platform to emphasize or promote views which may introduce WP:FRINGE ideas. Spudlace (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That means the same thing goes for internet portal Hrcak.hr same issues, not always written by scientists, if overused could give partisan and one sided view etc. We should not have double standards here User:Theonewithreason (talk) 25. December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, launch an RSN thread about it. But we do not horse trade.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Poreklo falls somewhere in the middle of the RS spectrum. It's published by the Serbian Genealogical Society but many of its contributors aren't academics or experts in the field of genealogy, although quite a few are. As Buidhe noted earlier, it can likely be considered RS for surname etymologies and the like. For concrete claims regarding an individual's or family's ethnic origin (often a contentious topic in the Balkans) stronger sources are needed (WP:V). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are an SPS advocacy group with no claims to editorial oversight that self-published work based on "conversations with individuals, who are the guardians and transmitters of folklore", as discussed above by Slatersteven and others. That fails every requirement of WP:RS. For contentious topics, we should cite only stronger sources with an established reputation. Spudlace (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

*Unreliable. Seemingly most of the members and editors who are writing articles on Poreklo are not educated historians, linguists, geneticists, and so on, but mainly a group of volunteers. For example, one of the authors mentioned by editor Sadko studied the economy while the president and main editor of the society and portal Poreklo, Jovica Krtinić, studied politics. Even if some of them are educated in a scientific field of work, education as such is not enough argument for reliability because we also seek reputation, specialization, and critical reception in scientific articles. I tried reading recent articles with Google Translate. They are obviously using their platform for promoting controversial viewpoints and fringe theories based on some limited genetic information like in this latest article using only selected few scientific references. It is claiming that Zachlumia, Pagania, Travunia and Duklja were Serbian principalities, that most of the scholars believe that Serbs from Zachlumia or Pagania migrated to a region in Italy and due to Michael of Zahumlje origin from a tribe of Litziki from Poland where in today's population was found some genetic match with a sample in Serbia and Italy, it somehow proves the Serbian historical origin and relationship with people and region in Poland and Italy. As can be read in the articles for which provided wikilinks (as well as Kanalites, Bosnia (early medieval polity), White Serbs and White Serbia), it is completely contradicting the general and modern scientific consensus & debate and does not make any sense. Agree with Spudlace, the comments by Serbian editors Sadko and Theonewithreason are biased. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  03:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a Serbian editor ,if you think to label people it should be noted that Filigranski is Croatian editor therefore biased. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if misinterpreted your nationality or ethnicity, but you're mainly editing and engaging in discussion on Serbian topics with an obvious Serbian point of view.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  03:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am just going to say that I am of mixed Yugoslav ethnicity with different citizenship never been in Serbia, about mine point of view same thing can go in your way since it is obvious your are pushing towards Croatian side (a lot), you are not as extreme as other editors here but but you are gaming the system like you did with Trbovich, funny don't see you fighting the same way when some other authors are heavily used i.e Anzulovic (who is even in Croatian history circles discarded) but no matter. I am long enough here to understand how you "play the game" and that administrators here don't give 2 cents about Balkan topics. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. December 2020 (UTC)
 * But just to be clear on one thing I would rather cooperate with you and some other Croatian Users like Oymosby who do understand Wikipedia rules so at least we can  discuss,  then with some other who are really just here to push it.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. December 2020 (UTC)

On articles about science we must use reliable sources published by reliable authors who primarily specialized in a relevant scientific field of work. Trbovich studied art, literature, law, and the economy. Barely anything related to history as well as was only paraphrasing historian's Miller's source which was also cited because of which was pointless to use Trbovich's source anymore.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  03:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The portal can be helpful in certain cases, especially for resolving etymological disputes. However, we should be careful with genetic studies. There have been many RSN cases (1, 2). and we should use only recent peer-reviewed journal articles.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Al Jazeera on Middle Eastern and Jewish issues more generally
Apparently Al Jazeera has falsely reported that Israel opened dams to flood Palestine, and had posted a video which promotes a Holocaust conspiracy theory. Should Al Jazeera be regarded as unreliable more generally for topics relating to the Middle East and the Jews? feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 15:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All sources make good-faith errors in reporting things, and all sources do have occasional errors in judgement. Perfection is not required, but rather a commitment to truthful reporting.  Al Jazeera pulled the video, according to the exact source you provided, which means that they recognized their mistake, and are willing to make corrections for it, a hallmark of a reliable source.  -- Jayron 32 15:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Al Jazeera retracted the report I don’t see a big issue here. All sources will be wrong some of the time and all sources are also more likely to be wrong the closer a story drifts to their ideological blindspots. What separates the wheat from the chaff is whether or not an outlet retracts stories and corrects errors. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As others have noted, it is generally reliable not always reliable. Both of these stories were corrected promptly (and in the case of the later the producers suspended). The dam myth was also circulated by AFP, a reputable news wire, and indeed in its article on the subject CAMERA points to another inaccurate article produced by... Haaretz. The Al Jazeera, the AFP, and Haaretz are all RSes. Corrections are indeed generally seen as evidence of reliability. Al Jazeera probably shouldn't be used for Qatar but besides that I see little to no problem with it. ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera is clearly partisan source regarding the conflict. It also funded by the government which is not democratically elected so in my view there are similar to Russia Today and other propaganda outlets that funded by government in autocratic regimes --Shrike (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a broad generalization by Shrike. I agree with El komodos drago that even reliable sources sometimes make mistakes. Al-Jazeera should be given credit for promptly withdrawing the story.VR talk 17:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,What is wrong with what I said? Its not funded by the goverment?The government is not autocratic? Shrike (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your implication that "sponsored by non-democratic government" = unreliable, "sponsored by democratic government" = reliable. What does that have to do with fact-checking? Trump was democratically elected yet has been accused of making lots of false and misleading statements. The only thing I'd caution with Al-Jazeera is when we're talking about the monarchy of Qatar itself. Other than that, I'd consider them generally reliable including on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They can't be considered any more biased on that topic than newspapers located inside of Israel like Haaretz.VR talk 15:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to Vice regent's point, all news sources are owned by somebody, and that somebody is capable of influencing the editorial line and contents of the publication. States, private individuals and private entities have interests which may bias content, and this fact should be taken into account when citing any source at all. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yet Qatar is not only funding it, but also funds Hamas and other terror orgs. Also, since VR mentioned Haaretz, for some reason Wikipedia loves Haaretz, yet its circulation is only 3% of Israeli readership and it goes down every year, and yes, it has a very leftist tilt. Having an opinion or bias is not the issue, it's that it is state sponsored and will only go so far in reporting news that may upset its owner. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not know of a press organisation without political bias. Of the Israeli ones I have read, Jeruslaem Post seems very biased in favour of a pro-Israeli analysis of any given international event, Haaretz seems more neutral. I don't have enough knowledge of internal Israeli politics to discuss their domestic coverage. As I say, all sources have biases. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Two retractions/corrections. 1 in 2015 and 1 in 2019. This looks like evidence of reliability, not unreliability. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Al Jazeera is unreliable and highly pro-Sunni biased, pro-Arab in the Middle East-related topics and pro-Bosniak in the Balkans topics.--WEBDuB (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like WEBDuB says, though Al-Jazeera does produce some quality pieces at its core it is "propaganda" or "public diplomacy" of the Qatari government as pointed out by Zainab Abdul-Nabi in a journal article. Like RT, the good pieces of journalism are just a cover to draw viewership for when they want to spin the Qatari narrative. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Though the Daily Telegraph produces some quality pieces at its core it is "propaganda" of the Conservative party and the interests of its owner. Though the Guardian produces some quality pieces at its core it is liberal "proaganda" based on the political interests of the unaccountable Russel Trust. Though the BBC produces some quality pieces it is at its heart "propaganda" for the British state and its official liberal democratic capitalist ideology. We can do this for any news source. Judge the content on the content, not on ownership. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

KurdWatch
KurdWatch was at the noticeboard in 2015, and the outcome at the time did not include the fact that its only content managers Eva Savelsberg and Siamend Hajo are quite controversial. Both appear to attend SETA (which promotes a Turkish Point of View on Kurds) Forums here and here, and Eva Savelsberg appears at TRT which is only seen as reliable source for the Turkish Point of View. here. Kurdwatch is has ended its activity due to lack of funding in 2008. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what others have to comment on it, whether it is a reliable source referring to Kurds or not.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hard to quantify, just looking at its content, it clearly has a strong anti-YPG bias. I am particularly concerned about a text entitled "Ethnic cleansing in Tall Abyad? Characteristics of YPG and PYD rule in the areas captured from the IS." This documents title is very unusual given it finds no evidence of ethnic cleansing. Their article on the Yazidis also skims over Turkish involvement in persecution of the Yazidis and manages only to mention the PYD in passing despite the fact they were instrumental in the survival of that community, and the immigration of large numbers of Yazidis into Syria. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Jacobin
Hello all. I'd be interested in getting Jacobin, added to WP:RSP, just to make it easier when it comes up in the future.

I searched the archives and found an extensive discussion here. It got 22 replies. My attempt to tally the results is 9 generally reliable, 9 "attribute" (marginally reliable I guess), and 3 generally unreliable.

I notice that another left leaning news site, The Intercept, is green in the table, and I consider Jacobin similar to them. A google search for "Jacobin accuracy" turns up the usual media bias fact check type sites. I know you guys don't like those sites, but one rates them "high" accuracy, another rates them 32, which is a "good" rating.

What are your thoughts on adding Jacobin to WP:RSP, and what is your takeaway from the archived discussion on what classification it should receive? It might be more productive to focus on evaluating the consensus of the archived discussion rather than starting all over. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh, I would consider them more similar to CounterPunch which is rated yellow. As Neutrality said in the last discussion, I would not rely on this for statements of fact (even when attributed) because it's an opinion journal, and for factual statements there will nearly always be a better source. For statements of opinion, "Jane Doe wrote X in Jacobin" is fine, but agree with the due weight concerns. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes Jacobin is a good source. Generally reliable, attribute opinion. I haven’t had any problems using it as a source. Editors generally accept it in my experience. The quote I used in the previous discussion still holds: “bracingly rigorous and polemical in a really thought-provoking way”. Burrobert (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As for your other question, based on the discussion, I would say there's no consensus that it's generally reliable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

, yeah, I'd say the consensus of the old discussion was probably yellow, "marginally reliable", often opinion, should attribute. In the interest of keeping this discussion focused, I'd like to state a new question.
 * Whilst Jacobin is without a doubt a primarily a political commentary source, it's factually rigorous. Its pieces are fact-checked, well cited, and well researched. I notice compares it to CounterPunch. Which, mind you, is also generally factually reliable though far more heavily opinion based. The thing is, unlike CounterPunch Jacobin also does long-form investigative journalism which puts it closer to The Intercept.  why is it "marginally reliable"? Whilst it is doubtlessly a partisan on-line magazine, it's factually accurate, the quality of writing is generally quite high, and professional. CNN and MSNBC in today's world are both typically highly biased and increasingly lean toward "Infotainment" style opinion instead of hard reporting. I fail to see why either should be considerably more reliable. Until there's actual evidence of mendacity on the part of the journal it should be regarded as a highly left-biased but factually accurate reliable source. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Re the comparisons here: Intercept trades on its reputation for long-term fact-based investigative journalism, and has an editorial team of seasoned investigators too, whereas the Jacobin is primarily an opinion outlet with editors who have no grounding in the world of reporting. I don't see any evidence of professionalism in this area or much investigative work, so I would place it much nearer than Counterpunch, although less prone to conspiracy theories than the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we add Jacobin to WP:RSP with an assessment of yellow, "marginally reliable"? – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus in the previous discussion appears predominantly to be "partisan magazine, generally reliable for facts, attribute opinion, check for due weight", in other words similar to WP:SPLC. If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this description and this summary of the discussion. In a lot of ways I think a comparison to Reason magazine might be even stronger than the comparison to the SPLC. And yes, I agree that it is premature to list Jacobin. Jlevi (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the yellow classification. While the source is somewhat similar to Reason in that it has a lot of commentary from a given POV, there is a difference in quality.  Ad Fontes rates both reliability and bias.  Reason is 38.3, 4.1 (reliability, bias)[].  Jacobian is 32.3, -19.9 [].  That puts Reason solidly in the second tier of sources while Jacobian is straddling the fence between second and third tier [].  Springee (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The comparison to Reason is apt. I'd hesitate to use either as sources for factual claims about anything political. If it is used, statements should be attributed in text to the author and Jacobin. There was a Columbia School of Journalism article on Jacobin, but unfortunately it's entirely about the business aspect and the novelty of a successful socialist magazine, and has absolutely nothing to say on its accuracy or fact-checking, which is what we care about. Jacobin is very open about their POV, and while bias in sources isn't a deal-breaker, it does raise some red flags. I haven't seen any evidence they're regularly making stuff up, but this is a fairly young publication with an unproven track record and a clear political agenda. It should be used with caution, especially when it comes to political BLPs. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also compare with Reason, but I also argued that it was a mistake to rate Reason as generally reliable, for similar reasons. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Left like Reason is right ie not really that partisan. I think Jacobin is fine. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the yellow classification and the sort of language suggests, although it lacks the specialist knowledge and specialist investigative rigour of SPLC. I would say it is most reliable for niche areas that mainstream media might miss (e.g. trade union disputes, left history) and least reliable for controversial US and geopolitical political topics where it should be seen mainly as a source of less noteworthy opinions. As a UK reader, I would add that its UK/Europe articles tend to be ill-informed and fringey. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the past discussions & evidence presented, I'd say Jacobin is generally reliable, as long as it's used with attribution whenever possible. Many other outlets that contain alot of (often unlabeled) commentary & opinion, such as Slate, The Economist, Le Monde diplomatique, & Foreign Policy are considered generally reliable. And the vast majority of such news sources are biased in some noticeable way or another. I also wonder what exactly 'marginally reliable' would entail here, as sources labeled as such, like E! News, Business Insider, and Vice Media are still widely cited (& in some cases, even defended, such as for example Vice on the MGTOW article). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is quickly moving from a review/closing statement of the previous thread into another discussion in its own right. A few questions: 1) Should we open an actual discussion again on Jacobin? It seems some people may have additional thoughts. 2) Should we ask for a formal close of the previous discussion? Jlevi (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If we need two significant discussions, might as well turn this into the second one, no? I would like to know the consensus on Jacobin.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This looks more like a WT:RSP discussion than an RSN one. It's interesting how we now view an RSP entry as a trophy to demonstrate a source's significance. The whole point of RSP is to document sources with multiple discussions so that editors do not have to read multiple RSN discussions for an overall impression. If there has only been one significant discussion on a source, searching for it in the RSP archives will get all you need. Discussing the reliability for the sake of discussion ... is not very helpful. feminist (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Think it is working in both directions, right or wrong. Absence of an entry is probably being used as indicator of unreliability.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds so stupid. If only one discussion exists, the consensus on the source is the consensus in that discussion. feminist (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on the ins and outs of procedure, Tayi Arajakate said up above If you want its addition on RSP, it would require either a RfC or at least two significant discussions (see WP:RSPCRITERIA). There is at present one significant discussion, RSP shouldn't be used as an indiscriminate listing of sources. So is that right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that their is a lack of consensus but that if it has only been discussed once then it is likely not being used enough to warrant an RSP entry. I think, however, that it is worth noting certain sources that are rarely discussed but are worth considering for an alternative (but still generally reliable) perspective (Reason/Jacobin) or for very reliable information (eg Reuters has never had a major discussion but still has a glowing RSP). ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The magazine exists to provide a left-wing perspective and to give in depth coverage of stories of interest to the Left. Opinion pieces no matter where published are considered unreliable per New organizations. That makes sense because opinion pieces rely on mainstream media for their facts. It makes more sense to use the original sources. Their original reporting, while reliable, is usually best avoided because we have to establish weight before including in articles. So I wouldn't use their current article about how the 1992 crime bill was developed because it hasn't received sufficient coverage. Where publications such as Jacobin are useful is in coverage of niche areas, such as what left-wing organizations are doing. TFD (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NEWSORG doesn't just baldly say that opinion pieces are unreliable afaics. I guess what you mean is they are not generally reliable for statements of fact in WP voice, right? I would have thought some opinions count for a lot, depending on whether the giver is good for it or not.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I hesitate to consider Jacobin "generally reliable" for statements of fact, because the source inappropriately blurs news reporting and opinion. For example, this article entitled Bernie Won Iowa presented "Bernie Sanders won Iowa" as a statement of fact despite the contest being won by Pete Buttigieg. Likewise, this article entitled The Corporate Media’s War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real presents the opinion of Jacobin writer Branko Marcetic as fact. feminist (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first article you mention it states the facts correctly (Bernie won the popular vote - which at the time he did, Bernie was drawing in terms of national delegates - which at the time he was, and that Buttigieg was winning in terms of state delegate percentages). Now as a Brit I don't entirely understand what a Caucus is but given that Sanders and Butigiege were drawn on the figure that has a legal impact (delegates) calling him the winner on the grounds that he won the popular vote seems entirely reasonable and honest to me.
 * In terms of the second story, it is a case of WP:HEADLINES, we never say that headlines are a source regardless of how reliable we feel the newspaper is. I would not be surprised to see stories worded in a similar way in The Economist or another news magazine which we view as reliable. Indeed I would say that news magazines tend to be better than newspapers even if they have occasionally idiosyncratic definitions of 'winning' (such as in Jacobin) or 'coup' (such as in The Economist). ~ El D. (talk to me) 11:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See, this shows how Jacobin wilfully misrepresents how the Iowa caucuses work. By interposing their own opinion on how the system should work (popular vote) over how the system actually works (state delegates), the reader is left with a false impression on the state of the race. The article presents "Bernie won Iowa" as fact but then justifies it as the author's opinion. No, that's not how news reporting works.
 * It's not reasonable to call Bernie a winner based on a metric that does not matter (popular vote); if the perception of a reader unfamiliar with American politics is that popular vote is key, a news article should at least not promote this wrong impression. To use a UK comparison, a party can lose the popular vote yet gain control of the government: just win enough seats in the House of Commons. I would have no issue if this article were presented as a straight opinion piece with the author arguing that Bernie should be treated as the winner instead, but this is not the case here. feminist (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as strange that this works by focusing on 'state delegates' as opposed to national delegates. Winning, say the presidency or a majority in The House of Commons in spite of losing the popular vote has meaningful real-world impacts. As does having fewer national delegates in spite of a popular vote victory. State delegates, by contrast, seems to be an arbitrary internal number that reflects neither what people are thinking (the popular vote) or what will actually happen (national delegates). ~ El D. (talk to me) 10:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I took the title of the first article simply as a hook for a (quite interesting) discussion on the ins and outs of the Iowa system. Admittedly if you are the sort of person that just reads headlines you might be misled but hopefully WP editors are made of better stuff. Fwiw, my personal opinion is we are going to see more of this type of writing in the future, people want opinion/analysis along with their news intake and again, we must trust editors to pick apart the wheat from the chaff.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:HEADLINES does discard the second one, but the first states Bernie Sanders won Iowa in the article text. Now I don't believe that there is a law or democratic party policy saying "the winner of Iowa is the person with the most state delegates" as such I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to declare someone the winner on the grounds that they drew on the thing that actually matters (national delegates) and won the popular vote as opposed to an arbitrary internal number. ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How can you read that article and think it's a factual reporting of news? It's not. It's a mixture of some facts, wishful thinking, and a stump speech for Sanders. The 2020 Democratic Iowa Caucus was a mess, and lots of the reporting at the time was muddled and confused, but this article is one of the worst I've seen. At the beginning the author says that Sanders was projected to win more state delegates, which ended up being incorrect. That's fine, projections turn out to be wrong. But she also says that Sanders is tied with Buttigieg in national delegates. She acted as if the preliminary results and projections available at the time were final, even though she was clearly aware at the time of publishing that the count wasn't finalized (Buttigieg ended up winning not only slightly more state delegates, but also 14 of Iowa's pledged national delegates, while Sanders won 12). Saying "I think we should call Sanders the winner because he won the popular vote" is an opinion. Saying "Sanders is tied with Buttigieg in national delegates" is dishonest reporting: a prediction disguised as established fact. And there's nothing on the site informing the reader this is just one person's opinion. Anyone who relied on this reporting would come away less informed about the outcome of the caucus than if they had read nothing at all. The more of their articles I read, the more certain I am that the entire publication should be treated as purely opinion, not a suitable source for factual claims. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2 articles presented are not exactly strong cases for ranking Jacobin 'yellow' instead of 'green'...unless of course we start doing the same for other magazine-type outlets which also do not have separate news & opinion sections, like Slate for instance (which is no stranger to controversial material). On the Sanders issue, I can also reference a reputed outlet like The Economist as also having published unlabeled contentious commentary (in the opposite end of the spectrum), but it'd only be one of many examples from 'green'-rated magazines. And I'm not seeing secondary sources on why Jacobin is not 'reliable', I thought Wikipedia policy discouraged people from using primary sources & opinions? Donkey Hot-day (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with it not being reliable for factual claims because of the mixing of fact with opinion, it's not a newspaper. Someone said "partisan magazine, generally reliable for facts, attribute opinion, check for due weight" and that seems about right. Someone wanted this on rsp, I think with this discussion and the previous we should be able to manage that, right? As I said, I think we are seeing more and more of this sort of reporting; seems eventually we will be attributing everything and personally, I don't mind that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. You say "I agree with it not being reliable for factual claims", but you want its RSP entry to say "generally reliable for facts"? I am absolutely opposed to that. It's not "generally reliable for facts", because its articles present the authors' arguments and opinions as if they were facts. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I get that you are opposed, I don't agree with you though because mixing facts with opinions is not the same as getting facts wrong. If everyone was agreed, I assume we wouldn't need a second discussion at all, right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would consider Jacobin yellow due to subject bias. And I honestly would not consider The Intercept green, but yellow as well. Especially when it comes to scientific topics, where it frequently treads the line toward promoting pseudoscience. Particularly on the topic of Genetically modified foods where it has promoted some strongly debunked sources before. Silver  seren C 18:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , mind sharing an example of GMO-woo promotion? I see one or two critiques on the site, but their mostly from an economic perspective, rather than a 'scary scary chemicals' perspective. Don't want to derail the Jacobin conversation, but it would be valuable to see some examples of what you're mentioning if possible. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even so, economics is a social science. And I wouldn't trust any political source on economics - not socialists, not libertarians. Crossroads -talk- 08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yellow Jacobin is obviously a publication that approaches topics from a leftist perspective. I'd consider it "generally reliable for facts", as it's clear, despite them not categorizing articles as such, what is a fact and what is opinion. Moreover, the case studied above is entirely unconvincing that the article is actually stating that Sanders is unambiguously the winner. Despite this, obvious care needs to be taken to ensure that the facts reported don't constitute undue weight, given the obvious leftist POV of the magazine. Acebulf  (talk &#124; contribs)  02:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One additional detail that I haven't seen mentioned yet: opinion is much heavier from in-house employees who tend to write more of the breaking-news, politically-charged material. Examples: Luke Savage, David Sirota, and Meagan Day. Still obvious when it's opinion vs. reporting from them. Jlevi (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally unreliable. It's a pure political commentary and punditry outlet, and as such everything falls under WP:RSOPINION - not suitable for statements of fact. As with any opinion piece, pundit talk show, etc., any facts given, even if accurate, have a high likelihood of being cherry-picked or framed in a misleading way. No reason to use it and not actual news sources. Crossroads -talk- 08:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is worth considering how other RS use this source:

Palgrave Macmillan peer-reviewed academic works:
 * In Body/Sex/Work: Intimate, Embodied and Sexualized Labour. Cited this without in-text attribution to discuss how feminism and sex work interact

Bristol University Press:
 * Cited inline to discuss the effect of COVID-19 on actions of international financial institutions.

Journal of International Affairs:
 * Cited inline to describe racial diversity in George Floyd protests. (by editorial board)

Wits University Press:
 * Cited to describe the effects of unemployment on workers, specifically in the context of African development patterns

AK Press:
 * Cited this piece with in-text attribution in Taking Sides to discuss details of protester behaviours during the US Ferguson protests

PM Press (offshoot of AK press):
 * Footnote in RE:imagining change suggests a Jacobin article analyzing Murray Bookchin in a modern context
 * Referenced in Beyond Crisis to describe the effects of austerity policy

Medical Journal of Australia:
 * On pharmaceutical industry vaccine development

International Studies Perspectives peer-reviewed by Oxford University Press listed among notable journals here:
 * Cited to describe student-led protest movements in Brazil

Springer's Review of Keynesian Economics:
 * What's wrong with Modern Money Theory: macro and political economic restraints on deficit-financed fiscal policy :"The fifth panel in Figure 2 concerns MMT's disingenuity about the role and necessity of taxes. That disingenuity has been emphasized by Marxists and left-wing economists"

NYT:
 * Used as blurb for a recommended book -> weighty for book reviews.
 * An article was analyzed in NYT's "Opinionator". The article in question was first published in Jacobin and later syndicated in Slate, described by Gordon Marino as "a much discussed article" -> Some specific articles are notable in themselves, lending support for possible RSOPINION status.

Slate:
 * Designated as 'supplementary reading' for Slate's podcast on fascism to describe fascist movements in the United States. -> reliable for historical statements on fascism

Vox:
 * : Cited, linked, and attributed for statements about housing density and city development
 * Linked to represent the political perspectives of the American left

Vice:
 * : Brought up a participant in a back-and-forth over political matters
 * : Linked to show left critique of media
 * : Linked for media criticism of a specific film (The Hunger Games)

New Yorker:
 * : Providing analysis of Bernie Sanders's political orientation

Politico:
 * : Fully quoted and attributed to explain a possible pattern of USA nonvoter behaviours
 * : Quoting interview
 * : Quoting interview

Fox (note: no consensus on politics/science):
 * The article basically just summarized a Jacobin article to describe the perspective of the left on Kamala Harris.
 * Cites interview

The Federalist:
 * Referenced 2x3x and quoted for statements on single-payer healthcare. (Note: This usage seems like a stretch on The Federalist's part.)
 * Quotes an interview.

The Bulwark:
 * Quoted to explain what "abolish the police" means.


 * In short, academic sources often use Jacobin to source statements of fact without inline attribution, including regarding protest movements, international economics, and the history of various political movements. Mainstream media sources on all sides of the aisle often use Jacobin to source the perspective of the American left. Usually media sources do so using in-text attribution, unlike academic sources. Jlevi (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Search for Quillette on Google Scholar and in media sources and you will find the same sort of use. Yet, because Quillette is likewise an all-opinion outlet with a clear political ax to grind, it is listed as red at WP:RSP. There is no reason for special pleading for Jacobin; it should be treated the same because it is the same sort of outlet; just with a different political POV. A punditry magazine is about the worst possible source for economics and political history; that a few marginal academic papers cite it anyway for that is best not imitated. Crossroads -talk- 05:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a major difference: at the RSN RfC on Quillette, a large number of specific critiques were made regarding reliability. Multiple hoaxes were pointed out and specific criticisms in RS were discussed. So far, only bias has been criticized for Jacobin, with no concrete comments made regarding reliability. Far from special pleading, UBO is a very standard thing to consider for all sources.
 * As far as I saw, UBO was not brought forward for Quillette. That is because it would not apply to that outlet! Google Scholar is not a very good way to look at this because the results are polluted with the sites' own articles (~700 for "quillette", ~5500 for "jacobinmag" on GS). Instead, I suggest comparing a search of a specific (mostly) peer-reviewed network of journals . I do so like this:
 * "site:journals.sagepub.com/ quillette" (74 hits)
 * "site:journals.sagepub.com/ jacobinmag" (1250 hits)
 * But let's go a step further! Looking at the usage patterns, I see that Quillette is used as a primary source to describe particular perspectives, and the articles rarely use it to source facts. In contrast, a random assortment from my search finds citations for facts about US labor history, about the rise of neoliberalism in the 80s, and about policing and municipal budgets.
 * Thus, if we accept WP:UBO as a meaningful part of the WP:RS content guidelines, note the statement, "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence," and evaluate the extent of use of Jacobin in this single network of journals, I think it is very reasonable to say that it is identified as an often-useful source by peer-reviewed academic sources (and that Quillette isn't). Jlevi (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Errors of fact were laid out above by Feminist. Academics can know based on their expertise when a source gets it right whereas Wikipedia editors cannot; and frankly, some academic papers are garbage, which is why predatory publishing, the replication crisis, and low impact factors are real things and why we prefer WP:Secondary sources in WP:Scholarship. UBO does not supersede WP:RSOPINION. We can't seize on UBO and ignore everything else said at WP:RS and WP:V. These show that Jacobin is not suitable for use on Wikipedia for unattributed fact. Put another way: Why would we trust a magazine whose explicit purpose is to push a political ideology to accurately represent economics and political history? Crossroads -talk- 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you critiquing any specific citation I described? Or are you just saying that predatory publishing, etc., is generally something to look out for? I don't think this response really addresses anything specific I put forward, and I certainly acknowledge that UBO is only a part of evaluating RS status.
 * Regarding the discussion above, it seems it is much more about mixed fact and opinion than about "errors of fact". Feminist starts by expressing concern based on perception that Jacobin "inappropriately blurs news reporting and opinion" (not based on direct "errors of fact"), and the extended discussion is clearly contested.
 * To your last point, good question! It's totally possible that an expert might be better situated to sort out fact vs. non-fact than a Wikipedia editor. Determining if that's the case is a reasonable end-point of this conversation. Implicit in that statement is the idea that experts have determined some subset of Jacobin as somehow useful. Is that a majority of coverage? Only a part? Is that mostly as primary sources demonstrating left-wing viewpoints, in a similar way that academics use Quillette to display certain perspectives? (I argue that this is not the primary usage above.)
 * To find out, I am trying to look at specific use cases to evaluate who is using Jacobin and when and how they are doing so. Jlevi (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Is www.caucaz.com (now defunct) a reliable source?
Hello, i am engaged in a discussion with some Baha'i editors at this page. They claim in this article that Musa Nagiyev is a Baha'i. The source that they are citing is a website www.caucaz.com, which is now defunct and it states in its about-us page that it accepts synopsis from individuals. Apart from this, the article on that website is written by one Baha'i, Azer Jafarov - and he cites his own book as a source for that claim. This guy (Azer Jafarov) works in the National Office of the Baha'i faith in Azerbaijan. He does not have any academic record and he does not provide any source in his book for his claims about Musa Nagiyev's accepting the Baha'i Faith. I would like to know if this claim about "Musa Nagiyev" can be kept with some conditions or outrightly removed. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – I am one of the editors who defended the source and I am not Baha'i. It appears based on this that Caucaz.com normally publishes experts and therefore presumably has some level of editorial oversight. (That source is in turn produced by experts, see here.) Gazelle55 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * - Thank you for your comment. I am surprised because the source is only Azer Jafarov - others sources (such as Caucaz.com) are taking from him without any investigation! Don't know what motivates them to take from a person who works in at a Baha'i office and his book is published by the NSA and he does not provide a single source for his claims! If a person like Nagiyev (billionaire) had ever accepted the Baha'i faith, it would have been reported far and wide in the Baha'i sources themselves. I did not find any mention about him in the Baha'i news, Star of the West or the Baha'i World.Serv181920 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning makes sense to me—the source may be wrong—but I fear that allowing this reasoning would be WP:OR. I would think the editorial decision to publish by Caucaz overrides any underlying concerns about the author and his sourcing (to himself as it happens). But perhaps because the reputation of Caucaz is not widely established we shouldn't give it a pass. I'm curious what the more experienced editors at this noticeboard believe. I guess there is a backlog because they are taking some time to weigh in. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Eclipse of the Assassins
1. Source.

2. Article. Kiki Camarena and related articles, including BLP Félix Rodríguez (soldier)

3. Content. General suitability as a source for WP:REDFLAG claims

Eclipse of the Assassins propagates the conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the 1985 murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena to cover-up a drug smuggling operation to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. Various federal investigations long ago rejected the CIA drug smuggling claims (i.e. ), and the largest homicide investigation ever conducted by the DEA identified Mexican drug traffickers as Camarena's murderers (e.g.). The book includes WP:REDFLAG claims by two former DEA agents (Hector Berrellez and Phil Jordan) and a self-proclaimed CIA agent (Tosh Plumlee, known to the FBI for fabricating various claims over the past 50 years, including his presence in Dealey Plaza during the assassination of JFK) that have been rejected (e.g. ) by those that include the former DEA head (Jack Lawn), the Inspector in Charge of the Camarena case (Jack Taylor), and a journalist who has followed the case for years and is described as an expert in "drug kingpins" (Elaine Shannon). Some of the other problematic sources that the book uses in an attempt to bolster its claims include: 1) Gary Webb (whose Dark Alliance series claiming that the CIA supported drug trafficking to raise funds for the Contras set off the firestorm leading to the various government investigations); 2) Spartacus Educational (criticized by the SPLC for promulgating conspiracy theories and conspiracy sources, and has itself been rejected as reliable source in various discussions here); 3) Terry Reed (self-proclaimed CIA agent known for his claims of having inside knowledge of CIA drug smuggling and that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush endorsed and profited from it); and 4) Richard Brenneke (self-proclaimed CIA agent known for his claims about the October Surprise conspiracy theory who says, like Plumlee, he was one of the CIA drug running pilots).

Despite a plethora of dubious sources for controversial claims, there is a question as to whether this is automatically a reliable source because it was written by a retired history professor (with his wife) and published by a university press. Questions: Are books written by academics automatically considered reliable, or can they still be considered unreliable or "fringe"? Are books published by university presses automatically considered reliable, or can they still be considered unreliable or "fringe"? To what extent are editors permitted to vet the sources used by such those sources? Can this particular source be used for statement of fact, and to what extent is WP:INTEXT applicable or necessary? Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that most editors, including me, have a presumption of reliability for materials published by reputable university presses that have undergone peer review as part of the press's normal publication and editing processes. We can and should make exceptions when there is evidence that those processes broke down or there are other significant irregularities.
 * I know nothing about this particular topic, the author, or the claims that are made in this book so I cannot provide any detailed comments on this source. I do wonder, however, how the author used the sources that you claim are dubious; there is a world of difference between mentioning a source and using it as a foundation for making significant claims. ElKevbo (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The output of university presses are considered generally reliable, not the books themselves. To use a metaphor, we consider the New York Times reliable but they can (and do) make mistakes. Books published by professors may be reliable under the 'subject matter expert' clause but generally far less so for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. Eclipse of the Assassins was apparently positively spoken of by an assistant professor in the Hispanic American Historical Review, a professor in the European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies,  and in the Midwest Book Review . That is not to say that this is accepted scholarship but it seems somewhat unlikely if the response of the entire academic community was "oh dear we shouldn't have published that".
 * I would personally say that it should not be used for any BLP claims and should be used with in-text attribution and given low weight but would be hesitant to dismiss it out of hand. Obviously, the US government has a conflict of interest in reporting an alleged murder by the CIA, and Webb's coverage (and the whole CIA-Contra story) remains controversial but I would lean on the side of caution unless a corroborating source is found. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how your second paragraph can follow the first. In your first paragraph, you state that this book that has been written by an academic expert (and published by an academic press) has been favorably reviewed by other academics in peer-reviewed journals. But then your second paragraph says that we should give this source "low weight" and only with "caution." Those things don't seem to match up. ElKevbo (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I do tend to get carried away. I am weighing the origins of the source with it making an exceptional claim. If there are other sources that reiterate the claim then I would be happier giving it normal weight and using it for BLPs. ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (basically what the person closing the RfC said) ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This RSN post appears to be an attempt to relitigate a closed RfC on the Kiki Camarena talkpage that was found in favor of including the allegations included within the book. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, while I am sure Location is acting in good faith, unintentional forum shopping has the same problems as that of the intentional variety. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I agree with the close. There are questions as to whether 1) WP:REDFLAG allegations, even by a former history professor, must conform to WP:INTEXT and 2) how allegations that contradict other sources should be presented. - Location (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of the RfC is that in regards to Can this particular source be used for statement of fact the answer is yes, it can with the exceptions laid out in the RfC (no content in lead etc.). In regards to to what extent is WP:INTEXT applicable or necessary? the answer is yes, in-text attribution is necessary. This means that it must be clear that this is what is in the book and whether or not it is true is unclear. I hope that helps, ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Books reviews and journal articles
The book is written by academics and published in a university press. It is both reviewed and cited favorably by other academics in peer-reviewed and/or academic journals. I can't find a negative review:


 * Pansters, Wil G. "Drug trafficking, the informal order, and caciques. Reflections on the crime-governance nexus in Mexico." Global Crime 19.3-4 (2018): 315-338.
 * Freije, Vanessa. "Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía." (2016): 766-768.
 * Pansters, Wil G. "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War." (2017): 143-156.

Pansters and Freije argue that the Bartleys are correct (Pansters), or at the very least make a compelling case (Freije). -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that this issue is being discussed at WP:AN, here: . -Darouet (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Libcom.org
I am proposing that this source should be classified the same as Scribd.com for the same reasoning given for them on RSP or deprecated as their library is full of user uploaded contents and it is a copyright issue. It is a repository of numerous unauthorized scans hosted on its own server or a link farm of infringing links. I've had to remove multiple references to unauthorized infringing copyrighted book/magazine scans hosted on Libcom 1, 2, 3 another one more Graywalls (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fair. Are there any subsections of the site that are more curated? Or are they all basically user uploads? If some are curated, it would remain a pretty useful resource for that smaller collection of documents. Jlevi (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We should be wary of making a blanket policy that discourages general use of Libcom and instead work on a case by case basis. It is an incredibly rich and well curated repository and many of of the texts hosted there would not involve any copyright violations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. So I support making it red, rather than deprecate. There is a good amount of "uploaded" contents, as such it should be treated as WP:UGC and the fact they have plethora of infringing materials directly hosted is a huge problem in the same way Scribd is. Graywalls (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think making a general assessment on Libcom is very open to misinterpretation. With Scribd, it is effectively a social media platform, but most of what Libcom puts out are reputable published books, as such the problem is people using Libcom as a link, not people using the stuff Libcom produces as a reference. Some sort of edit filter might be preferable so that the citations could be remade correctly. ~ El D. (talk to me) 23:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is my concern. Scribd wasn't primarily depreciated for copyright reasons but because Anyone can upload any document they'd like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated - anyone can upload anything there, making stuff hosted there suspect (an WP:RS concern) even if it purports to be an accurate copy of a legitimately published work. This concern isn't true for Libcom.  Copyright violations are a concern, but they are not a WP:RS concern, so I would be opposed to adding any source to RSP in any context solely based on legal or copyright issues.  That's not what RSP is for. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The copyright issue was one of the issues actually explained in RSP listing for Scribd. Libcom contains quite a bit of WP:UGC making the source WP:QS For example, some kind of UPLOADED essay by user on Libcom http://libcom.org/library/trotsky-left-opposition-rise-stalinism-theory-practice-john-eric-marot as used as a source in the article Communism. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That essay was originally posted in Historical Materialism (journal) (volume 14, issue 3 published 2006 - a peer-reviewed academic journal affiliated with the University of London and published by Brill Publishers) and as such is not user-generated. It also doesn't appear to be in violation of copyright but that is a matter for people who know more than me. ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's not an open access journal and there's no way Brill (the publisher) released this copyright. As attributed, the upload is definitely a copyright violation.  czar  21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Libcom has been described as semi-reliable. Again it's to broad, it is an excellent source for a large amount of varying information presented by anarchists, of course it's biased and we use the source with care. However many Libcom authors include well known academics such as Noam Chomsky, to accept Noam Chomsky only when he is writing outside of Libcom seems well ridiculous. It can be an excellent source for anarchism assuming we use it with care. Therefor stating it as self published source seems extremely off. Many articles use libcom for good reason. Des Vallee (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think we should make a distinction between libcom.org's news section, blogs and library. Blogs are obviously full WP:UGC. For the news, I tend to think them as semi-WP:UGC. Maybe others can clarify this, but it seems similar to some Indymedia projects. On the other hand, the library section has a vast collection of documents, many of them in the public domain, or authorized, etc. These documents should be judged individually. Many of them are WP:PRIMARY, others WP:RSOPINION, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Broadly agree. I don't think blogs would be cited here much but are clearly UGC/SPS. News is almost all reposted from elsewhere, so can assessed case by case on basis of original source. Library is all reposted but is frequently good material whose provenance is clear, can be assessed case by case to identify if primary in relation to a particular claim, opinion in need of attribution etc, or might involve copyright violation. History articles also need to be assessed case by case, as provenance of each item is set out clearly on libcom and it should be easy to determine what counts as a secondary or primary source for a given claim. In short, blanket assessment would be unnecessary and problematic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As an active editor in this space, I can't see any case for calling Libcom a reliable source. Whether news or republication from other sources (lots of copyvio), it has no hallmarks of editorial control (all user-generated content). It's a great resource for starting research, absolutely, but should not be cited by an encyclopedia, not even on a per case basis. A "blanket assessment" would be absolutely appropriate here unless someone can show that they have a reputation/pedigree for editorial accuracy or control. (not watching, please )  czar  21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is google arts and culture a reliable source?
So,I added a reference to this article(Turbo_Tech_Controller) and that reference was linking to an artsandculture.google.com page,so is google artsandculture a reliable source?

Simulator-master (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. It appears to be a recursive source (i.e. Citogenesis), considering the link back to the Wikipedia article in question just to the lower right there. And, presumably, that source URL would not be reliable in general. It does appear to have source link backs to where it gets stuff from on other pages. So...just follow and use the original source for other stuff in those cases. The problem here being that the source is the Wikipedia article, so no reliability at all. Silver  seren C 05:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to what has been stated above, the article was first created unsourced in 2004, when quality standards around new articles were much lower. I can find no other sources about this controller other than a reddit thread, indicating that it is not notable. It should probably be nominated for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. It just scrapes data indiscriminately from museum websites, Wikidata, and WP itself. Usually there will be a credit to the original source—use that if it's reliable, and find something else if it's not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect
Hi editors, I came to the subject article on Dunning–Kruger effect as a normal reader. While reading, I found a source that I consider to be unreliable. The source is number 4, "What the Dunning–Kruger effect Is and Isn't", URL here.

I note that this article was protected in April 2020 due to disruptive edits. I very intensely want to avoid an edit war. Before editing, I want to check with you experts and make sure that I am correct that this source is unreliable and can be removed.

I posted about this source on the talk page. Thank you very much for your help.Jarhed (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:Burden is on (or whoever is defending the source, the talkpage is indented weirdly or missing a signature) to prove it is reliable. My quick searching shows Tal Yarkoni to be a Research Associate Professor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for replying. I am not sure what an academic credential for an individual has to do with a reliable source. Could you please elaborate?Jarhed (talk)
 * The source is a personal blog post (WP:BLOG), so it was a good idea to investigate it. As such it can be considered that author's opinion.  The author's competence field matters (emphasis mine): "Research Associate Professor Department of Psychology University of Texas at Austin".  Another good sign is that his post cites his sources, including the 1999 paper he's writing about.  If I understand, Yarkoni argues that the paper doesn't support the popular misconception that incompetent people believe they are better than competent people, just that they overestimated their own skills (the overestimation tends to be less for more competent people).  If I read the 1999 paper abstract, it doesn't contradict that conclusion.  Considering all these I tend to find the source usable about the misconception.  If it's challenged by other good sources then it could ultimately be attributed and presented as this psychologist's understanding of the paper (but that might not be necessary at first glance).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that challenges to the Dunning-Kruger effect are not valid. I am appealing to undue weight. The subject effect is well known in the behavioral sciences. My problem is that a personal blog post is being used to imply that the entire theory has been discredited and that is simply not true.Jarhed (talk)
 * I agree that the post doesn't discredit it, it's only valid criticism about the misconception that the incompetent believe their skills to surpass that of experts. If the way it's presented and if it's considered due are still debated, this would normally be decided at the article's talk page, or processes listed at WP:DR can be used.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 12:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What's going on here, User:Jarhed? You knew before you posted here that I had responded in full (with numerous cites) to your broadside on this matter (regarding an author and paper that had been introduced some time in mid-2017 and over 400 edits before I ever arrived at the Dunning-Kruger effect article) at that page's Talk page here, including detailing the Yarkoni work's citation:


 * in the thesis of a graduate student at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School at Monterrey, California (Disaster Threat and the Dunning-Kruger Effect), which investigated the occurrence of the Dunning-Kruger effect in individual decision making during disasters for its impact on U.S. homeland security policymaking;
 * at the Psychology and Neuroscience Stack Exchange in answer to the question: Does the Dunning-Kruger effect still work the same if the incompetent person is aware of this effect? by a lecturer in psychology at Deakin University in Australia;
 * being quoted at length at the Chart of the Day feature at The Atlantic the very day it was published, July 7, 2010, here; and
 * cited and directly hyperlinked in the Science section of National Geographic.com "Not Exactly Rocket Science" by that section's author, Ed Yong, under News/science/writing here, lauding its "big caveats on the Dunning-Kruger effect". Yet you post here as though none of that ever happened.

Thank you User:Emir of Wikipedia and User:PaleoNeonate for your contributions. I have corrected the errant indenting I had inadvertantly created in my single post at the Dunning-Kruger effect Talk page (linked above), eliminating any confusion it might have introduced. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikiuser100, your response to my criticism was composed from other articles that are not reliable, such as from Stack Exchange. In the article, there is substantial criticism introduced through unreliable source (4), a personal blog post by so called author Tal Yarkoni and his blog. I intend to remove this unreliable source and everything that references it. I am here on the reliable sources noticeboard to get some expert opinions about this. I apologize if my effort to get expert opinions offends you.Jarhed (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yarkoni's blog post seems like it meets SPS imo. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * SPS Self published sources Jarhed (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it was worthy of investigation and discussion and I'm kind of impressed with the thoroughness with which editors on both sides of the debate have examined this source. I agree with the other above who said this is an OK source to use as an expert WP:SPS, however it should be used with attribution. So, "According to Tal Yarkoni, [D-K is a misconception, or however it's worded]..." We shouldn't use it to cite a statement in wikivoice, but attributed is OK. Levivich harass/hound 18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, User:Jarhed, it's time for you to stop threatening to remove the Yarkoni material that has been at the Dunning-Kruger effect article since 2017. Five editors here have weighed in in support of its use - User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:PaleoNeonate User:buidhe, User:Levivich, and myself, with supporting documentation - and none have supported you. Yet you persist with challenging it in spite of this at the Dunning-Kruger talk page: To be frank with you Mr. Wikuser100, I actually think that your criticisms of the theory are valid and worth recounting in this article. All that I want you to do is to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sources and to source your criticism accordingly. That blog post that you used is not reliable. I would appreciate it if you would find some reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources. The author's qualifications, how the cite is used in the article, and how it is used elsewhere by others have been upheld. You are beating a dead horse. Enough. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of agreement with you is erroneous, no such agreement exists here or on the talk page of the article. I insist that you stop characterizing my discussion here as a "threat". I threaten nothing and I have no intention of arguing with you. I will say again: personal blog post (4) on the article is not reliable, and it is being given undue weight in the article. I have been convinced by this discussion that it should not be removed from the article completely, and I agree with that analysis. I am preparing to edit the article to remove the unhelpful paragraph from the article header. I will leave the reference and all discussion under heading "Mathematical critique", although there is criticism about this section on the talk page that it contains no math. I don't care about that section. What I care about are your edits that imply that the theory has been disproven, which is flat nonsense. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What you have written above is nonsense, User:Jarhed. You are in your own world.  Nobody here - five people: User:Emir of Wikipedia, User:PaleoNeonate, User:buidhe, User:Levivich, and myself - has agreed with you.


 * Please stop your threats to remove legitimate content (including that addressed above regarding the Yarkoni cite, and that supported by four independent, reliable sources at the DKE page, as I addressed in my post there earlier today) or I will be forced to take the unhappy step of seeking administrator intervention. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?
I have no clue with this one. If this is the wrong place, I'm sorry about that. I'm looking to add this bridge collapse on October 9, 1977 to the article on Hurricane Heather, and I can't find another source on the bridge collapse. Thanks! Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  03:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm...there's a lot of primary sources in there, so those could be used in a limited fashion for what they are. As for the secondary commentary, do we know who wrote the text portions? I would presume someone who works at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, considering the source URL. The reliability of the textual commentary depends on if the writer is a reliable source for the information, such as a professor who actually researches the topic. Silver  seren C 05:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I found this path to the pdf: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ > https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/flwo > https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/facilities/Staff-Locations > http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/whipple.html > http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/flwohis.html > http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/hist/flwo1973-79.pdf. The coverpage of that document is here and indicates that Don Hogan was the author. A brief biography of his credentials can be found on p.135 or so of this pdf. I'm not sure what information is to be sourced, but I am inclined to say that despite the document's informal appearance Hogan had expertise regarding the facility's history. - Location (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow you're a hero. This looks heaps like the equivalent of newspaper clippings/scrapbook by someone that knows how to find information about a topic. It has more or less referenced its source regarding the bridge (Tucson Citizen newspaper, approx date, approx topic - if you had access to the microfiche you'd be able to find the article), so I think you can assume this to be accurate. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh also just in case anyone wants this, http://www.sao.arizona.edu/FLWO/ is the directory which we're allowed to look at for some reason. It has more history pdfs, but nothing else over that bridge collapse range. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all! Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  23:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade
Reporters from both sources report management altered stories to advance a pro-Trump bias.

Sadly for the journalists, I wonder if this should cause us to consider these two works somewhat unreliable (not for fault of the journalists) for the last several years. At least in the realm of politic topics. --M asem (t) 02:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is definitely cause for concern. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is way too early to make that sort of judgement based upon a two-day old story. (Here is another article about this in The Washington Post.) I am not about to go through all of the articles they post, but here is one I found in The Blade that states "supporters of President Donald Trump swarmed the building and sent lawmakers into hiding". - Location (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do we have any knowledge on what the kind of alteration done was? Like, a specific example of what information was changed? Because that's really the question. Was outright false information presented or just a biased stance on topics? Silver  seren C 05:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the article, we know upstream words were changed to give a pro-Trump slant, and that this was going on for a "few years". This may simply be a matter of bias issues with these sources, which would be a thing to flag as a "use caution, replace if possible" and certainly would not use direct quotes attributed to the journalists' writing themselves. It is unlikely outside US politics other edits were made upstream, but it would simply make sense to caution editors on this situation and recommend using other works if at all possible to source information for the 2010s. --M asem (t) 02:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if it true we do allow biased sources --Shrike (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Shrike. Change of frames is qualitatively different than change of facts. This appears to be the case of the former, not the latter. And reporters being edited is a customary part of the gatekeeping process that differences a newspaper from a blog. There's not a journalist working who hasn't complained about the headline or photo caption his editor has placed over his story, or cuts and additions made to it. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Cite from an advocacy group (EcoTransit)
Is this cite from a non-notable organisation that declares it's an advocacy group as used here reliable? Would have thought it contravened WP:NPOV. Balgil (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not a violation of neutrality to document the fact that an advocacy group does advocate something, and this is one of the cases where self-sourced claims are acceptable. But it would be better to have a secondary source for this, especially if you are worried that the advocacy group is not significant enough for its activity to merit coverage; cf. WP:UNDUE. I'm inclined to say this instance is OK. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Vocabulary.com
Currently cited on a few dozen pages. For general reference, for example information about hummus: place of origin, ingredients, word definition, etymology, etc. I can't tell what kind of fact-checking they do, or who exactly writes it. Is it comparable in reliability to other dictionary-type sources, like Lexico, Collins, Merriam Webster, or simple encyclopedias etc? --IamNotU (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would avoid it. Seems to be more of an educational tool than a source per se: see . That said, I can't imagine a case where it would provide information another source couldn't. Merriam Webster is free online, there are plenty of dictionaries in the PD, and I assume many Wikipedians have access to OED through various institutions. No reason to use vocabulary.com. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Deprecate The Tab?


Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , since this noticeboard has a higher-than-average number of RfCs active right now, could you please limit yourself to one active RfC and refrain from starting another one until your previous one is closed? It would also be helpful if you offer some background research on the source when you are proposing it for deprecation. I have converted this RfC into a standard discussion. If the consensus in the discussion is supportive of deprecation, an RfC can be added as a subsection of this discussion. — Newslinger  talk   11:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a brilliant source but shouldn't be deprecated. Here is the editor: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/joshi-herrmann NYT says "Tab uses traditional journalism tools like Freedom of Information Act filings, door-to-door sleuthing and libel training. But it also digs deep into Reddit, excavates meme chains and cultivates gossip." Guardian says "Some of those stories that impressed the owner of the Sun included Malia Obama’s decision to attend Harvard; a Cambridge student setting fire to a £20 note in front of a homeless man; and an interview with an Oxford Brookes student who kissed Cheryl Cole on New Years Eve." Its focus is UK universities, and on this topic might have more detail than better sources. I'd class as Use with Caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Mostly student gossip afaik. I’d consider it generally unreliable / deprecated. I can’t really think of any case where we’d actually use The Tab as a source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would imagine it being used in an article relating to UK universities. For instance, would it be problematic to use this (one of the most recent news items on The Tab)?: https://thetab.com/uk/2021/01/11/22-russell-group-su-executives-demand-no-detriment-policy-189298 BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Better to look case by case. I went to see if we use it much.It turns out The Tab is used as a source in quite a few of our articles, and it would be better to discuss reliability in context in relation to one or more of these. If we deprecate, these and other similar articles will need to be sorted: April McMahon, Veruscript, Gray rape, Wills Hall, JacksGap, Picocon, Chloe Sims, Made in Chelsea (series 19), Gordon Aikman Lecture Theatre, KingsGate Community Church, Rare FM. None of these are in areas I know about so can't comment really. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Implications of Twitter's Ban on Donald Trump
So I was thinking about how Trump was recently banned by twitter. Unfortunately we have a lot of citations on Wikipedia that go to Trump's twitter, where you can no longer view his tweets. I was thinking of the following solutions: P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Use: thetrumparchive.com in order to link to Trump's tweets (website is pretty reliable, [in terms of completeness])
 * Use the Wayback Machine, which is not as reliable (in terms of completeness).
 * Wayback Machine is far preferable to the other website. It is maintained by a well-funded staff with a long track record of keeping materials accurate and available for many years.
 * I have to wonder, however, why we'd cite these tweets in the first place. They're primary sources. If they're important enough to include in an encyclopedia article then surely editors can cite secondary sources that establish due weight e.g., news articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say either source is reliable, but I think the Wayback Machine is better to use if possible. One day, the National Archives will have some site where his tweets will be archived and available, but of course, that is not available at the present time. Historyday01 (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think part of the reason for having the alternative citations to the primary sources (e.g. an archive of the original tweet) is that many news websites link the tweets themselves using cross-site linking rather than taking screenshots, which then breaks if the tweet or account is deleted later. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo, you make a valid point there and having alternative citations is important without a doubt. Historyday01 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If its a tweet that has caused issues (such as his various racist ones, the ones encouraging violence and so on), it will have been covered by reliable sources in the news and we would use them. That the original tweet is no longer available is irrelevant, the secondary source is enough to verify the content. If its used as a reference for something primary (the only real legitimate use of self-published social media) - well Trump isnt even a reliable source for himself due to the habit of you know, being a gigantic liar. Do you have an example of something which Trump's twitter is currently being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with on this. There is no need to link directly to the tweets (a primary source). If the tweets were notable, they would have generated secondary coverage. If the recent ban created broken links, I would just remove the links, rather than use Wayback Machine or other means. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixing mention of . --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Only in death and K.e.coffman. In the past when I've had cited individuals who have deleted their tweets or deactivated (like was recently the case for Shadi Petosky and Dana Terrace), and I have included the references with their tweets, I've just changed the url-status from "live" to "dead". I don't know where his tweets are cited elsewhere, but considering the raft of news coverage, I'd imagine they are quoted in other media outlets, so you wouldn't even need to cite the tweets directly. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say both are usable and neither is essential, per the above. Having a link to an archive of the tweet may be useful to readers, provided there is no question as to its accuracy; the heavy WP:USEBYOTHERS for thetrumparchive.com makes it usable as a host for primary citations, and of course the Internet Archive's reputation is sufficient for that use.  Between the two I tend to think that thetrumparchive is more useful to readers (more complete, easier to traverse, searchable) but that really only matters when including one as an external link rather than as a cite to a specific tweet. Either way, they're not essential but I wouldn't support removing them in places where they end up being used, provided a secondary source is also present to establish due weight, or when the cite is to something trivial and uncontroversial that falls under WP:ABOUTSELF.  (Though for ABOUSTELF usage, there is honestly no reason we should ever have to do that when it comes to someone as prominent as a president, so I'd tend to view any invocations of it skeptically even if it's something we could notionally do.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who have responded. I think the verdict here is to mainly use secondary sources for his tweets, and if none are avaliable, use thetrumparchive.com or the Wayback Machine. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Inquisitr revisited
What about Inquisitr? (I don't have a specific use case in this instance, I just keep seeing it cited and was hoping for some community clarification. There was a short-lived discussion previously here .) Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
 * Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
 * Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?


 * Option 3 or 4  Option 1 ... My first reaction, based purely on the website design and that fact it is known as an aggregator, was 3. However, on closer examination I don't think the facts support that. It appears to primarily deal in précis' - not aggregation - with some original reporting thrown in. It has a gatekeeping process and a physical address in a jurisdiction in which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes. And it's easy to find a great many RS that have cited its reporting, e.g. KHQ-TV, Washington Post , Vox , Greensboro News & Record , Asheville Citizen Times , UPI , etc. And, Yahoo News appears to syndicate some of Inquistr's original reporting, too . Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC); edited !vote based on further comments by Aquillion and others 17:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Along with The Daily Mail, it apparently published quotes from a fake interview with Roger Moore in 2013, although did issue a retraction: . Not sure how much I trust AOL.com for news, but they also note a fake story + retraction involving Melania Trump: . And another from Psychology Today: . AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good find! As long as there's a prompt correction I'd probably rank that in the same category as MSNBC reporting Bob Dylan dead last year and then issuing a correction or the Washington Post claiming Jair Bolsonaro was the President of Mexico a couple months ago . But it's good to have these things available to help our evaluation. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 2. While not horrible, I have seen Inquisitr give undue credibility to the allegations by Gary Webb that the CIA was involved in drug smuggling to raise money for the Nicaraguan Contras (e.g. ) and allegations that Operation Mockingbird was a real CIA operation (e.g. ). I seem to recall a few other articles that I have stumbled upon that were troublesome, but I guess that doesn't help if I cannot recall what they were. - Location (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 3 leaning 4: MBFC rates Inquisitr's factual reporting as mixed which is a very bad grade. The story about Melania Trump having previously worked as an escort that the Inquisitr and the Daily Mail published in 2016 is so beyond the pale that a retraction and an apology doesn't cut it. Some examples from Snopes and people the Inquisitr has pissed off:


 * * In 2013, they stated that Doctors Kill More People Than Guns, A New Study Reveals. In 2016, Snopes revealed that the "study" Inquisitr referenced doesn't even exist.
 * * In 2014, they falsely claimed that "The CDC and CIDRAP have admitted that Ebola is now airborne." The CDC and the CIDRAP did not.
 * * Another story of theirs from 2014: Over 30 Percent Of Americans Have An RFID Chip Implanted In Them… And They Don’t Even Know It! The story has been taken down, but come on...
 * * In 2015, the aplty named site MORON published an fake news/satirical article about a "Florida Man" killing his imaginary friend. Inquisitr republished the story as if it was real. Snopes writes: "this story was still listed as a real news story on the Inquisitr as of 13 May 2015".
 * * In 2015, they published an article titled Ku Klux Klan Forces Black Baker to Make Racist KKK Cake, So Does Memories Pizza Lose Religious Freedom? based on a fake news article from 2013 in the satirical Tribune Herald. Snopes points out that the Tribune Herald had a disclaimer at the bottom of all articles reading: "Tribune Herald is a satirical publication meant for entertainment purposes. All articles are a blend of real world events and people into fictional stories." The Inquisitr's article is still online and there is no indication that it its fake.
 * * Less nefarious, but still incorrect, in 2015 Inquisitr claimed that "social media released reports that Michael C. Hall agreed to resume the role of Dexter Morgan for two more seasons." "Social media" didn't "release" any such "reports," the "journalist" made it up, apparently.
 * * The Inquisitr has been criticized for selling "do follow"-links for $250 a piece. Something that is both immoral and against Google's TOS.
 * * The Inquisitr has been caught plagiarizing stories about, get this, plagiarism!
 * * In 2015, they published a hoax about how Costco supposedly removed a "Dinosaur Cake" with the number 666 on it. Matthew Keys' indepth analysis of how the story came to be is damning and reveals that entry-level freelance writers are paid $10 per 400 word article. The "Dinosaur Cake"-story was written by John Albrecht, Jr. whose sole source was his girlfriend. Treisman's "off the record" comments cited in connection with the story: Treisman denied the notion that Inquisitr’s low pay might be an incentive for writers to submit fabricated stories. But he did acknowledge — in a statement he later tried to declare was off the record — that their editorial “system can be abused” and that the site’s focus on search engine optimization and page views over content was in line with the conventional tenets of journalism. “News is about what’s trending,” Treisman said, “and SEO is all about how to write at certain levels of readability…the system can be abused — that’s not a news story, that’s life — and if it means as a result systems need developing and building then welcome to the real world. And none of this is my official statement.”
 * * Employment ads from the Inquisitr reads as follows: "Applicants must speak English fluently and be able to write a minimum of 25, 400-word articles per week" Emphasis theirs. Assuming a standard work-week of 40 hours that comes out to about 1 hour and 40 minutes per article. According to the Inquisitr's employee handbook, this includes photo tagging and image editing.


 * Given that 99% of the content on Inquisitr is celebrity gossip, which falls under WP:BLP, I cannot see how the site could ever be used. But I almost never edit biographies so idk. (UPDATED) Im The IP  (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "MBFC rates Inquisitr's factual reporting as" Wikipedia rates MBFC's reliability as unreliable (WP:MBFC). In any case, I'd be most interested in examples of recently unreliable articles, not those from 5-7 years ago. New media outlets evolve and professionalize as they gain traffic and advertisers to better resource their operations; for example, early Buzzfeed--> Later Buzzfeed --> Buzzfeed News. Chetsford (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 3 or 4 per most of the examples given by ImTheIP and this academic paper, which classifies it as Junk News (defined in that paper as sources that ...deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting / Publishes false or fabricated information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

TVOvermind
Curious for others' thoughts on TVOvermind. The (undersourced) history section of the landing page states that it was started as an episode summary blog, but was sold. It has been expanded to more of a "TV news"-type of website, but editors have raised concerns of it being a web scraper. Thoughts? – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 01:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a data scraper. It looks more like a low-quality clickbait content farm, with article titles like "10 Things You Didn’t Know about Chelsea Laden" and "That Actor Whose Name You Don’t Know: Zach Grenier", the sort of stuff you would see in an Outbrain external link section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific concern is that content like this is not a real article and is basically just web scraped content... So, that, combined with what looks like low editorial oversight, makes me guess this isn't a WP:RS, and certainly not for WP:BLPs. But I'd like to see what others think. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The term "data scraper" implies that text is being taken wholesale from elsewhere automatically via bots, which appears not to be the case. The term "content farm" essentially describes what you are stating, totally vacuous articles designed to satisfy an algorithm, churned out in great volumes. According to it is used in 511 articles, many of which are BLP's, these should systematically removed there might also be a case for adding it to the Spam blacklist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, web scraping is a little different than data scraping, and the article says: "While web scraping can be done manually by a software user, the term typically refers to automated processes implemented using a bot or web crawler." (emphasis mine) – so it can be manually done. But point taken on content farm, and this site also seems to be that. I definitely agree that this is not a reliable site for sourcing (esp. WP:BLPs) because of all of these issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have an exact memory but I remember seeing articles on the site which were literally verbatim copied from Variety or some other publication. Not sure if it used to be more reliable in the distant past. It's also run by the same "company" as moneyinc.com, which has a similar appearance/quality. Heartfox (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Amnesty
The attributed blockquote below was used in COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine. It was removed with a suggestion that it was a primary source that needed secondary context. This questioning of Amnesty as a source comes up with reasonable frequency in the IP area with some editors arguing it is primary, partisan, biased, or an advocacy org. I found in the archives quite a few references to Amnesty with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_276#Is_research_by_Amnesty_International_a_valid_source_for_Wikipedia? this from October 2019 being solely about it] and it is not on the RSP, is it worth having an RFC about general reliability? According to Amnesty International "Israeli authorities must ensure that vaccines are equally provided to the Palestinians living under their control, in order to meet their obligations under international law. They must also ensure smooth entry of vaccines and other medical equipment to the OPT, including making any necessary logistical arrangements to ensure the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines." .

Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Amnesty is advocacy group and biased regarding the I/P conflict, to the very least they should be attributed and used in conjunction with secondary WP:RS if they WP:DUE at all--Shrike (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that Amnesty is a primary source for its own views on its own wikipedia page but a secondary source for content on a page related to, say, Palestine. Ignoring this interesting philosophical point, the same content is available from other sources . Even the Times of Israel mentions Amnesty's opinion, though it isn't completely happy with it. Burrobert (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , If it available then why use amnesty and not secondary WP:RS to give a proper context? Shrike (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be one way of cutting the Gordian knot. However, what about next time someone uses an Amnesty report in one of our articles? Burrobert (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , In my view it shouldn't be used without at least one WP:RS per WP:DUE Shrike (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * as happens a lot.Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an advocacy group (although more respected than most), and biased wrt the I/P conflict, so in most cases its conclusions should be attributed to the organization, assuming that it is WP:DUE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you able to clarify what you mean by "biased wrt the I/P conflict"? Biased toward/against whom and for what reason and how do you know? Burrobert (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in general they are viewed as holding a pro-Israel line although that has lessened in the last two decades. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Amnesty is reliable but this piece of text should never have been used as it was... Thats a recommendation not a conclusion or finding. It certainly doesn't say whats its inclusion in the section "Debate over responsibility” (which is weirdly atypical and shouldn't exist at all BTW) suggests it says. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There are conclusions and findings in the Amnesty report which are relevant to the question of responsibility. What do you mean by "which is weirdly atypical and shouldn't exist at all BTW"? Burrobert (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are strong recommendations but they are not conclusions or findings as they are inherently speculative. The entire section is block quotes with barely any context... Have you ever seen that before when editing wikipedia? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You can retitle it if you like, it is just a subsection of Vaccines to hold the conflicting sources until we get some clarity and can write it up normally. I did read them as saying Israel has the obligation - "to meet their obligations under international law." I think that's probably what its all about, legal interpretations. Some say yes, some no, 180 degrees apart.Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think Amnesty claims should generally be added with in-text attribution. Its inclusion is almost always granted. You can find a secondary source for the publication of virtually every Amnesty report. I would apply the same reasoning to other notable advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch. --MarioGom (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't previously looked at the "COVID-19 pandemic in the State of Palestine" page. My previous comments were based on the initial question and the link to the Amnesty report. The "Debate over responsibility” section does look odd. I believe the recommendation is to use block quotes for quotes that are more than about 42 words in length. I can't comment on the actual content of the section apart from what has been raised here as I haven't read it. Some findings from the Amnesty report are:


 * "The Israeli government must stop ignoring its international obligations as an occupying power ..."
 * "The COVID-19 vaccine roll-out plan so far covers only citizens of Israel, including Israeli settlers living inside the West Bank, and Palestinian residents of Jerusalem. It excludes the nearly 5 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, under Israeli military occupation".
 * "Israel’s COVID-19 vaccine programme highlights the institutionalized discrimination that defines the Israeli government’s policy towards Palestinians".
 * "... there could hardly be a better illustration of how Israeli lives are valued above Palestinian ones,” said Saleh Higazi, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International".
 * "Over half a century of occupation and enforcement of a system of institutionalized discrimination in the OPT, including East Jerusalem, Israel has deprived Palestinians of their basic rights and committed mass human rights violations. Israel must end its discriminatory policies and remove any barriers that may hinder Palestinians from accessing or enjoying health care".
 * "Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law include ...".
 * Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

An organisation having an agenda doesn't mean it's unreliable. For example, the WHO aims to improve global health outcomes, but they're considered very reliable. So, then one should look at the normal indications of reliability. AI has special consultative status with the UN.. I went through their report Australia, where I live and grew up: of the statements I know a fair amount about, they are all true; they don't use rhetoric; and they are summarised in ways that are not easily misunderstood. They tend to provide at least overarching sources for their reports (making them worse than journal articles, mediocre for white papers or books, and better than most news articles), but not author names. There's an additional problem though in assessing reliability: they produce a number of different types of resources, including news, research, and reports. Personally, I would definitely look to them for interpretation or criticism of practices (like describing Australia's conditions for detained refugees as inhumane), but would consider verifying statistics (like the number of people Australia keeps on Nauru) elsewhere before reproducing those in a WP article. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Amnesty is an advocacy organisation and should usually be used with attribution. Its research and investigations are widely seen as good quality. Its reports are usually noteworthy, as evidenced by wide secondary coverage. It is a primary source for its own positions and findings, and secondary sources generally can and should be added. We might distinguish between factual findings in its reports and normative conclusions and recommendations ("Israeli authorities must ensure" etc would be an example of the latter), the latter requiring even more careful attribution and more attention to secondary sources to check for due weight, but absolulely no reason to avoid or delete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this raises a questions two questions, first, if an AI report is not cited by others can it be considered DUE? For example if an AI report says Mr BLP is a doing [bad thing] can we add, "According to AI, Mr BLP is doing [bad thing] [cite AT report]"?  Do we need a RS to make the connection first?  For example a CNN article about Mr BLP or a topic related to Mr BLP notes what AI said.  If the answer to the first is no but we have the CNN article giving weight to the contents of the AI report, can we include information from the report that wasn't covered by AI?  My general feeling is the first one should be no.  If the AI (or any similar activist organization) report is not mentioned by others then it's content isn't DUE.  If the report is given weight by others then we have to use some judgement as to what of the report can be used (with attribution) in a wiki article.  If the organization is well respected/established like AI, ADL, or a respected think tank (CATO), then I would think the whole report may be acceptable.  Conversely, if this is a smaller group then we should limit things to material others have cited from the report.  Springee (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with here. If no secondary coverage, would not generally be DUE. If considered DUE, then can cite elements of the report not mentioned by others (because it is sufficiently reliable) but with more caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC) However,  I would not remove an AI source as a reference if there is no secondary source, as almost all of their reports we are likely to cite will have some secondary coverage, so am not concerned about the large number of uses on this site.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sexual slavery in Islam
Is it possible to use this source (thesis for the degree of doctor) to support the following material in the Sexual slavery in Islam article? Saff V. (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Classical Islamic law allowed men to have sexual intercourse with their female slaves.
 * I would say no per WP:SPS. The specific claim in the thesis that "Their owners had the right to have sexual intercourse with them and these affairs were never regarded as adulterous or sinful" (page 242) does not cite a source. The other source cited in the first sentence of Sexual slavery in Islam, which would be a good source if it supported the claim, does not appear to: it's here, and does not explicitly state the claim at issue here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say yes or no, but point towards some considerations outlined at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The University of Leeds is a good uni, and I think that it would be fair to say that the PhD supervisor, Avihai Shivtiel, is a recognised specialist in the field. If the thesis has been cited by other scholarly works, it might be reasonable to use cautiously as a source. It's pretty old though - is a 30-year-old PhD thesis really the most recent and reliable work done on a subject like this? Girth Summit  (blether)  20:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Same response as . A PhD thesis is not an SPS, and an examined PhD from a good university should be considered a reliable source, and even if it was then it would by definition be a self-published expert source if it were a claim about the topic of the PhD itself. However, PhD theses are better used for more niche topics, e.g. some detail of historical Islamic jurisprudence in a given period, rather than for topics where there are a range of sources enabling us to see a scholarly consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A doctoral thesis from a reputable institution that was reviewed and passed using typical scholarly processes is usually considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. As is often the case, however, the more nuanced question is whether the document meets the bar of due weight. In many cases, if a thesis or dissertation is the only place where a statement is made then it doesn't meet that bar as most theses and dissertations are only ever read by more than a few people. I am not qualified to make that judgement for this specific thesis but it would be such an unusual case for a thesis to be widely read and influential that I am comfortable placing the burden of proof on those who claim otherwise. ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Is Middle East Eye a reliable source for contentious claims about a BLP
Two Middle East Eye articles have recently been added as sources to the Douglas Murray (author) ( fixed link ) article [], []. Is MEE a RS and/or DUE for contentious claims about a BLP subject? Are their OpEd articles considered acceptable? Springee (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are referring to Douglas Murray the author. Contentious = likely to cause disagreement or argument. Any negative statement about a person is likely to be contentious to that person and her supporters. Who is doing the contending in this case? Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the author. Sorry, I didn't realize the page was Douglas Murray (author).  I believe standard practice is any negative/disparaging content that is associated with a BLP subject to be contentious.  The first link is being used as a reference to a book Murray wrote so if MEE is a RS and generally considered DUE then I think that would be OK.  While scornful it doesn't attack Murray directly.  The second link is an OpEd article and is being used to support a claim that Murray is associated with the far-right.  My primary concern is the OpEd part though claiming someone is associated with far-right, alt-right, white nationalist etc are all what I would consider to be value laden labels.  At an overall level is MEE reliable (it does at least report to have an editorial structure) and second is it normally DUE?  My feeling is probably RS but I can't say if it should be given WEIGHT.  The OpEd article is not acceptable because it's an OpEd being used to support negative associations about a BLP.  Springee (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't found any editorial board on the site also it regularly publishes fake news and hate   --Shrike (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is hard to find information about the editorial structure of MEE. I couldn’t find it on the website. We know that former Guardian journalist David Hearst is the website’s editor-in-chief. Some information about staff is contained in this (not particularly positive) article . Regarding MEE’s reliability, no reliability problems are mentioned on our page for the website. The two articles provided by Shrike do not mention specific examples of unreliability. The Arabnews article says something that strengthens MEE’s claims to being GR:  "many human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, use MEE’s articles as a point of reference, as do the New York Times, the Washington Post and Germany’s Deutsche Welle".  The main issue raised in the Arabnews article relates to a disagreement about its focus. The JewishNews article is upset with what it believes is MEE’s connection with Hamas. Burrobert (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm always way of MEE, which publishes some good stuff and some flawed stuff. The article about the book seems somewhere between an opinion piece and a book review and so could maybe be used with attribution if we think that its author, Ian Almond, Professor of World Literatures, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University in Qatar, is sufficiently expert or noteworthy for this to be due. The other piece is more reportage and it's by Nafeez Ahmed, who is quite a controversial journalist, so I would consider only using it in a way like this: "his work has also been linked to the alt-right by Nafeez Ahmed". I think the alt-right claim and footnotes should be moved out of the lede and into the body, and the Islamophobic claim should be summarised in the lead and detailed properly in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the Ian Almond Nafeez Ahmed article says it's an Op-Ed I don't see why we would include it, especially since it is being used to support a contentious claim about Murray. Springee (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Corrected Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the Almond article is published under "opinion" but is clearly a book review. A detailed book review by a well-known Georgetown professor is hardly undue. As for the "contentious claim" you keep bringing up - in today's polarized media environment there is little that is not contentious. Noteduck (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cut-pasted the wrong name. The Ahmed article is the one I meant as it was the Op-Ed. I'm still concerned about the claims that MEE is a propaganda outfit. At this point I wouldn't be OK with citing anything to a MEE article. Is Ian Almond's opinion of the book available through other sources? Springee (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

To make my point, let's compare Almond's review to Rod Liddle's, which also appears on Murray's page. Rod Liddle has a history of scandal (just read his page!) has had a complaint upheld against him by the Press Complaints Commission and has pleaded guilty to Contempt of Court in the course of his reporting. He also, quite unlike Almond, appears to have zero specific expertize in issues surrounding Islam and political Islam. Should we then exclude this passage on Murray's page:

"Rod Liddle of The Times called the book 'a brilliant, important and profoundly depressing book'."

I think we can all agree this is silly - the claim isn't written in Wiki's voice, and Liddle is writing in The Times which is a well-established media outlet. The point I'm making is that my ongoing complaint about the Murray page is that sources perceived as unfavorable to Murray are being subject to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold. Just because the Ian Almond review is highly critical of Murray's book does not mean it has no place in the article Noteduck (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a basic sourcing issue. Wikipedia, like it or not, says material published in things like The New York Times, etc are generally given more weight than material published in sources with less reputation.  If Ian Almond's view is highly significant is it shared by other sources?  Why would it only be published in this source.  I know this can be frustrating as I've been on the other side of this sort of thing.  Springee (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "is it shared by other sources" - yes. The points made by Almond are shared by the other negative reviews of The Strange Death of Europe, or did you not look at them? Again, this is part of a frustrating trend of articles critical of Murray being held to an impossibly high evidentiary threshold for inclusion. Absent stronger rebuttals please do not remove this material from Murray's page Noteduck (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is shared by other sources yet deprecated. In this case Almond's review is not shared by other sources.  The other article is clearly labeled opinion.  Springee (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A few points that summarise my views: Burrobert (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What we know about MEE indicates that its editors/journalists are experienced.
 * MEE seems to operate from a particular viewpoint/bias. This is what several articles linked above are saying. This does not preclude it from being a reliable source.
 * There is no evidence that MEE is unreliable in the sense of publishing false information or failing to correct errors it makes.
 * Both Ian Almond and Nafeez Ahmed appear to be notable enough for their opinions about a subject within their areas of expertise to be included in a Wikipedia article.
 * As with other sources, opinion pieces and reviews, whether positive or negative, should be attributed to the author of the piece.

The question we should be asking is whether this source is reliable, not in general, but for some particular context and proposed addition to the Murray article. That's my understanding of how RSN is supposed to work. The quote that is being appealed to from the MEE piece by Ahmed is this:

This is being appealed to in order to support the following claim:

So is Ahmed an academic who thinks that "Murray's views" are "proximate to the far-right"? I can't tell from this source. Ahmed says that Murray's view that certain attacks show something about Islamists is what he unclearly calls a "ploy for far-right entryism". There are two problems. First, Ahmed is not talking about "Murray's views" but rather one particular view he holds. So it's at best misleading to suggest that Ahmed thinks "Murray's views" are "proximate to the far-right" since only one of Murray's views is under discussion here. Second, I don't know what he means by the claim that the view in question is a "ploy for far-right entryism". It seems to me OR to say that he means that this view of Murray's is "proximate to the far-right". I think it's unclear what he means by "a ploy for far-right entryism", and that it is basically impossible to reliably summarize his claim in other terms. So it would have to be a direct, attributed quote if it were regarded as DUE. But it isn't DUE, because it isn't clearly written, and it's published in a non-prominent source. So I'd oppose relying on this source for the proposed content for all these reasons. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be appropriate to include Almond and Ahmed’s opinions from MEE with attribution. The question of how their views should be summarised on the page is a question that would be better discussed on the article’s talk page rather than the reliable sources noticeboard. Burrobert (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this whole thread is somewhat misleading. The Ahmed source is one of THREE journalistic sources used to demonstrate Murray's "proximity" to the far right, along with FIVE academic sources. Shinealittlelight these are semantic games you are playing - clearly Ahmed is associating Murray with the far right. I would go back over your talk page and consider your biases, especially given that you have called out for bias before. Noteduck (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing misleading here. The term, "proximity" is vague. Also, this isn't a question if other sources make a claim, only if this one passes BLP standards.  Once again, MEE is a questionable source per discussion above and this is labeled as an opinion.  Either way I think we can agree this isn't a consensus.  Springee (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Quotes are provided as courtesies for readers and editors and are not in themselves sources. The source is Ahmed's article "White supremacists at the heart of Whitehall" Ahmed mentions Murray 41 times (I counted) in his article and the context, white supremacy and far-right activism, makes it clear that he thinks Murray is one of them. Ahmed's opinion is one of (at least) five others which establishes WP:DUE. Whether MEE is "reliable enough" or not is quite irrelevant because no one can seriously dispute that the article on their site is written by Ahmed and accurately reflects his opinion about Murray. BLP is meant to keep potentially libelous content out of Wikipedia, like when some rag reports that a politician has had an affair, it is not meant to stop content which is unquestionably true. Im The IP  (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Am a bit confused about the quotes part. I agree that we can assume this MEE article accurately reflects Ahmed's opinion/analysis regarding the Murray book.  I guess that puts me in the same boat as some other editors who ask if this is DUE based on the reputation of Ahmed.  I'm not sure that it is.  I agree that others say similar things.  So while that suggests Ahmed's views are out of line with others I still have to ask if that makes his specific reference DUE for inclusion.  Springee (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSN, RSN is where we assess whether a quote from a given source adequately supports a bit of proposed text for a WP article. In this case, I have argued that the answer is "no": the quote provided from the source does not adequately support the proposed content. You're all free to disagree with me if you want, of course, but let's keep it civil. I'm not playing any games, I'm providing an analysis in line with RSN. For what it's worth, if Ahmed had written something that wasn't totally unclear, I think his reputation and credentials suggest that his opinion on matters within his expertise would be DUE. But I find what he wrote in the relevant quote to be unclear and for that reason not usable for the proposed content. If someone wants to ask about a different quote as support for more competently written content, then we can talk about that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While DUE is offtopic for this noticeboard, the point of sourcing the claim to Ahmed and five other authors is to demonstrate that the claim is corroborated by a large number of sources and is therefore DUE. No, the quote in itself isn't the source. Quotes are provided as courtesies to readers who are too lazy to click on links and in cases where the source might come under a paywall. The entirety of Ahmed's article is the source. This is of course immaterial to the question of whether an article written by Ahmed on MEE is a reliable source for Ahmed's opinion, which it clearly is. Im The IP  (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. This source belongs on Murray's page and the attempts to remove it, which have been rejected repeatedly by editors with no stake in the page, should stop Noteduck (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that Ahmed is a recognized expert, and while the venue in this case is low quality, he is clearly respected. Thus, I think that the source provided is a reliable source for the claim that Ahmed regards Murray as one of several people who "appear to be funded and embedded in a network of far-right ideologues" and he thinks that Murray's "concerns about free speech are really just a ploy for far-right entryism". That's what Ahmed says about Murray's relationship to the far-right in this piece. So while I have no idea what these quotes mean and would not know how to summarize them other than directly quoting them, I do think that the piece is reliable for establishing that these are direct quotes of a recognized expert. I don't see that the piece supports the proposed content, though, which is very misleadingly written. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Unreliable-- Given that Middle East Eye has documented connections to terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the fact that it is funded by the Qatari government, and the lack of a strong editorial board, demonstrates that this site is unreliable--especially for contentious claims to a BLP:, , , , . Additionally, this site seems to engage in borderline antisemitism: Is Israel's hand behind the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn?, Palestinian groups urge Labour: Don't adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Israel’s push to control global discourse has infected the medical realm, Israeli settlers' racism is not an aberration. It's part of an apartheid system etc. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MEE's pro-Palestinian stance doesn't mean its antisemitic or unreliable. It just means its a WP:BIASED source. You cited a blog (not reliable) and The National (Abu Dhabi) (also problematic) against MEE. The BBC article and WSJ article you cited are both reliable but neither says anything negative about MEE.VR talk 23:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The BBC source and the WSJ article were meant to show that MEE is funded by the Qatari government, whose human rights abuses and sponsor of terrorism are too numerous to list. They have also used the media to run disinformation campaigns. Why is the National an unreliable source, but MEE is not?. Also, did you not read the AEI report by Michael Rubin, a foreign policy expert?  Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Some users seem to WP:LIKE this source Shrike (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If only that was a sufficient rationale, then we wouldn't have to spend our time explaining why using a site connected to terrorist groups might not be such a good idea. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * are all sources funded by a government that is accused of terrorism considered unreliable? Well, BBC News is funded by a government accused of terrorism. NPR is also funded by a government accused of terrorism. But both of those sources are considered reliable.VR talk 16:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop with the false equivalency. The United States and the United Kingdom rank in the top 20 on the Human Freedom Index. Qatar ranks in at 127 out of the 162 nations measured: . They are not the same. And the BBC and NPR don't have ties to terrorist groups. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * out of curiosity, what would you think of state-controlled Arab News? We have State-sponsored_terrorism, Saudi Arabia isn't a free country...There's even a discussion on Arab News down below Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.VR talk 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have to take a closer look, but this last RfC looks fairly accurate: . Basically, it should only be used for non controversial claims and nothing related to the Saudi government. It may be acceptable in some circumstances on the People's Mujahedin of Iran, but only with attribution and an in-line qualifier like "Saudi controlled-newspaper." But, still, a different, independent source would still be preferred. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * so can the MEE also be used with attribution and in-line qualifier on topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?VR talk 21:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With attribution and an in-line qualifier, in some circumstances, then yes. The reason I would exclude it from Douglas Murray is because it's a BLP. Contentious claims to a BLP should only be supported by high quality sources. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd just add that Al Jazeera, which is controlled by the Qatari government, is considered a generally reliable news organization by Wiki and believe me, there has been EXTENSIVE debate and discussion on this. I would be cautious in using MEE in an article defending Qatar's human rights record or something like that, but an argument by a renowned expert like Nafeez Ahmed with a wealth of academic and journalistic experience hardly seems unreliable. Also note that his claim that Douglas Murray represents a kind of "entryism" to the far right, putting an acceptable face on extreme ideologies, is supported by multiple other sources, eg   Noteduck (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Year and date articles - sourcing
Hi, I am not sure where to look or ask for this resource. It is my impression (word on the street says) that all "year" (1984) and "date" (April 18) such articles must comply with WP:V in that a cited source may be necessary for any assertion therein. Operating on this assumption, I have been reverting unsourced additions to a few such articles for months now. I am experiencing significant pushback. Can someone direct us to the consensus where we decided to stop allowing unsourced material to accumulate in these articles? Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking for WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE. Some editors objecting to a cite requirement in those articles point out that a project's decisions are not binding on everyone else. Schazjmd   (talk)  21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the guidelines, which are helpful, but clearly there was discussion and consensus which led to their adoption; do you know where they would be archived? Elizium23 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that I don't know, I wasn't involved in them. might know (ping).  Schazjmd   (talk)  22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . The discussion is archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year/Archive_13 and the section below that.   Yeah, we get a lot of wingeing and pushback but that's what it takes to effect an improvement like this. Thanks for your hard work on this,  Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that providing a citation to verify a death date or birthday addition is tedious to a list article such as the day or year articles if sources verifying the subject's death or birthday are already present at the Individual's article themselves. I will say that a source would be needed if there is not one presented at the article. As for events on those list articles, I believe that they should have should have references as they can be fabricated easier. This citation measure could only be taken if heavy vandalism is at play on that specific article or list, But for now I think it's monotonous to place citations on list entries if they are already submitted and verifiable at the linking biography. And this measure will hurt overall progression of these articles as a majority of IP users won't follow those measure to put references on entries and will be reverted. I've seen multiple IP users be reverted for putting notable biographies in the death or birth sections in the day list article without sources when their is sources at the article. I personally wouldn't  care to using either editing measure though. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, but no thanks.  per WP:USERG.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the discussion, . When I review pending changes for a day-of-year articles, if they don't include a cite, (say, for a date of birth), I try to get one from the source article and it's disappointing how often there isn't a good one. Even though articles should have sources for date of birth, death, or event, they don't always. I think the project's call was the right one to make, otherwise we're just perpetuating unverified information. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Several of us have been painstakingly going through and cleaning these articles up. Yes it's tedious, but we've removed a ton of unsourced/unsourceable or downright wrong entries.   Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of the work I do on Wikipedia is tedious and monotonous. I actually prefer that kind of stuff to creative work, which can be draining. Some of us are gnomes and we like it. Just because a task is tedious or monotonous doesn't mean it should be shirked.
 * You are a volunteer. All your work is optional. Therefore, if you don't want to cite a source, you are free to make no addition to the article. If you wish to make an addition, then you know the requirements. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are a volunteer. All your work is optional. Therefore, if you don't want to cite a source, you are free to make no addition to the article. If you wish to make an addition, then you know the requirements. Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Arab News reliable on the People's Mujahedin of Iran?
Is Arab News a reliable source on People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK)? This question has come up at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and also relates to a controversial RfC. I propose it is not. While Arab News can be reliable on many topics (eg domestic Saudi news, Saudi culture), it should not be considered reliable in this case. The Saudi government is believed to be funding the People's Mujahedin of Iran (Guardian, RAND, Foreign Policy) and, according to Foreign Policy, "Saudi Arabia’s state-run television channels have given friendly coverage to the MEK".

This question relates to both the verifiability of statements and their weight. Should a particular POV's coverage in Arab News increase the WP:WEIGHT it should be given?VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 14:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The assumption made here that there is a connection between the MEK and Arab News lacks any form of evidence and falls within the WP:OR realm. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also that Arab News article used in that RfC was written by DR. Majid Rafizadeh, who is an expert political scientist. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally, the statement in that RfC was supported by other sources besides Arab News. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Guardian, Arab News' owner SRMG "has close ties to the Saudi ministry of information". I already showed above that the Saudi government funds the MEK. Is that not a clear conflict of interest?
 * And if an expert publishes in an unreliable source, then the source would be considered WP:SELFPUBLISHED.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a WP:SYNTH assumption; you have not showed that Arab News is a primary source for the MEK or that there is a connection between Arab News and the MEK. You're also ignoring the other points made about the article's author, as well as the other sources used to support the sentence that Arab News is also supporting. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can y'all give it a rest? Coming to RSN is no use if you don't let uninvolved users get a word in edgewise. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two accepted ways in which one can assess the reliability of a source assessing a particular claim. The first is the one usually seen on this page: is a venue generally reliable for our purposes in the kinds of claim it makes? - if so it just is a reliable source. The second is the one that is usually seen on the talk pages of individual articles: one looks at all the sources that bear on the particular claim and weigh up their credibility to see if should either (i) conclude there is a fact of the matter supported by a working consensus of reliable sources that allows us to simply assert or deny the claim, (ii) conclude that there is reliably sourced evidence on the matter but no acceptable consensus, so we should document the various positions without violating WP:UNDUE, or (iii) the sourcing is flimsy, in which case we should say nothing on the topic. I think you are asking if a discussion of the first kind of way (it is something like the outside view) can settle a matter where there is a controversy - I don't think we can settle that here. My advice is to continue the discussion on the talk page, and try to ensure that where there is controversy you don't attach undue weight to raw primary sources and look for the balance of judgements made in quality secondary sources. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Seventeen.com
Seventeen.com is the online version of American teen magazine Seventeen. What are the views on the reliability of the source, and specifically this "Loren Gray facts" article? I am wishing to use it on our article on the subject for her supposed birth name, "Loren Gray Beech", if it is deemed reliable as the source currently used is Heavy.com which RSP advises against using for contentious statements. SK2242 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This source shows that her original musical.ly handle was @lorenbeech, which is consistent with what Seventeen say. Dazed also give her full name as Loren Gray Beech and it doesn't seem to be in contention, so I'd support inclusion with this sourcing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Business Insider
Which of the following best describes the reliability of Business Insider?


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

AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Previous RSN discussion: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Several other previous discussions listed at WP:RSPSOURCES. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Business Insider)

 * Option 2. Mainly per this old-ish article in the The New Yorker. It is owned by Axel Springer SE (see ), which seems reputable enough to this non-German reader. It looks like a WP:NEWSORG to me—the lead article as of when I'm typing this is bylined, although it doesn't include any quotations not previously published. I'd say this looks like a slightly more questionable WP:HUFFPO. If consensus is not to deprecate, I would suggest flagging at RSP that usage of Business Insider should be attributed, if not avoided. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Axel Springer are the publishers of Bild a notorious german tabloid often compared to the The Sun, and has a questionable reputation for factual accuracy. Of course the same company that owns The Sun also owns The Times which is generally reliable, so I don't necessarily that the reliability of a publication can be determined by its owner if they happen to be a major publishing company. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Axel Springer also owns Die Welt which is solidly reliable. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Solid Option 2 leaning towards Option 3. Started out as a collection of blogs, all the awards it's received have been in blog categories. Known to engage in clickbait tactics and noted by the New Yorker for prioritizing speed over accuracy. Also noted in the current Reliable sources/Perennial sources listing, which notes a whopping nine times it's been discussed already, the site does not clearly mark syndicated content and that makes for another reliability issue since such content has to be gauged by the reliability of the original publisher. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning Option 2. It has some good stuff, but some awful churnalised clickbait. I'm reluctant to consider it sufficient to connote notability. I'd certainly attribute at least - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 I'm leaning towards option 3 as well. Maybe some of the content is good and some isn't. I don't think it's reliable enough to use as the only source because of known churnalism and questions about fact-checking. It's not taken seriously at AfD. Spudlace (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1, per WP:NEWSORG. Ad Fontes rates their reliability and bias as 43.13 and -0.38. So slightly better than The Economist. Media Bias / Fact Check rates their reporting Very High. Im The IP  (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, that's very helpful. I'm not familiar with Ad Fontes Media. Do we typically use their ratings as evidence of reliability in other contexts? (Not to say they aren't reliable—I just haven't heard of them before). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't regard them highly at all. They're not a good media ratings organisation. Neither is MB/FC, which is literally just some guy's blog opinions - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , IMO Ad Fontes is a very useful tool, and they roughly agree with our own RSNP on many sources. But they're a tool, not evidence of reliability. We don't (and shouldn't) use them as evidence. But as a tool, they're pretty useful. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are some key cases in which our standards diverge wildly from AF. I'm not going to talk about their 'bias' axis, but their 'reliability' axis is quite different from our conceptions. They take into account headlines and graphics, which in general we consider separately from article content. They also consider 'expression', which they define as (essentially) the % of opinion content in an article vs the % of fact. This is not in itself a bad thing--we prefer to clearly mark opinion content--but it makes using their scoring much less useful for our purposes. I think there are other ways in which our definitions of reliability diverge from their definition of veracity, but this is a fair start. Jlevi (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1. Now that I think of it, I don't really see any evidence that they're not reliable. There's clickbait, sure ( was at the top of their trending list as of the time I'm writing this), but it's attributed to check-able sources and bylined. It seems comparable in reliability and bias ratings to other reliable sources, per the !vote immediately above, keeping in mind any necessary caveats about the reliability of those sources. Their native advertising is tagged as such (and that article is from 2013). They aggregate and rely on others' reporting, but so does HuffPo, a reliable source. The New Yorker article that concerned me above doesn't actually make any claims of journalistic malpractice. I'm now inclined to view BI as a genuine news organization—buzzy and clickbaity, no doubt, but a news organization nonetheless. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Business Insider's headlines are out there and they've received a lot for criticism for it. "Buzzy and clickbaity" headlines are significant. WP:NEWSORG says to cite the reporting agency too, so why not just cite it to the agency? Editors use all kinds of crazed tactics to push POV into articles. Spudlace (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Citing the agency is of course appropriate when there is an agency, but BI publishes original reporting as well. As for buzzy headlines, HuffPo runs them too (this one is an AP report). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Two things. First, it seems a bit disingenuous for you to have tried to remove information you didn't like about the source followed by trying to add information you did  to the article, seemingly to influence this RFC?
 * Second, you seem to have ignored or missed the consensus of previous discussions and a key finding as listed on Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which is their failure to clearly mark syndicated content, which makes evaluating content on the reliability of the original source excessively difficult. Aggregation or syndication, clearly marked as such, is one thing; failing to clearly mark it falls into an area of possible source-laundering. I am reminded of another recent case where someone was trying to misrepresent a syndicated Washington Examiner piece full of WP:FRINGE election conspiracy-theory content as "coverage by MSN", which thankfully was easily debunked since MSN clearly marked it and even included the WE header. Imagine instead, the WE piece had been laundered by Business Insider, which doesn't properly mark its syndicated content? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please WP:AGF with respect to my edits to Business Insider. The first edit was an attempt to remove a POV subsection (calling a section "tabloid clickbait" is clearly POV-laden). The second was an ordinary edit to add information about the source. I am not a shill for BI; rather, I have been convinced of their reliability from information presented in this RfC, which I added to the article to better inform readers.
 * Second, when you say "syndicated", do you mean sponsored or taken from an agency? If the former, they seem to mark it; if the latter, I don't actually see the evidence that they don't mark syndicated content (WP:RSP says "may not be clearly marked", which is not a definitive statement in the least). If you could point me to a more specific example of their failure to do so, I would be happy to consider it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, here is an example where syndicated content from Reuters is very clearly marked. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, here is an example where syndicated content from Reuters is very clearly marked. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 Lots of clickbait churnalism which should generally be considered UNDUE or adds no weight to a view. However occasionally a good story comes out of BI.  Springee (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Option 3 leaning Option 4 What often happens at RSN is editors engage in individual analysis of sources or apply their own standards for determining reliability. We only have one standard to apply; if RS consider an outlet RS, it's RS; otherwise it's not. There have been such numerous RS that have repeatedly raised questions about the reliability of Business Insider's reporting and its editorial independence that I feel safe in !voting 4. For instance -
 * Joining The Daily Mail as one of only two outlets who published a sensationalist and potentially fake headline about leaked documents (reported by PolitiFact )
 * Giving a corporate advertiser "limited editorial control" over its news content (reported by Columbia Journalism Review )
 * Allowing reporters to take junkets paid for by sources (reported by the Columbia Journalism Review which described it as a "serious ethical problem" )
 * Publishing a factually false story about Apple (reported by Ryan Holiday in his book Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator[page 58]),
 * Publishing a factually false story about Edward Snowden (reported by The Intercept ),
 * Requiring its own reporters not to report negatively on the outlet itself (reported by The Daily Beast - journalists at outlets like the BBC and the New York Times regularly cover their own shortcomings)
 * A journalistic ethos for dubious "churn 'n burn" style journalism described as creating the potential for "fake news sites frequently trick[ing]" it (reported by the Columbia Journalism Review )
 * Questionable ethics and journalistic credentials of editorial leadership - including the outlet's editorial head who is serving a lifetime ban from securities trading over fraud allegations (reported by The New Yorker )
 * "Capricious story assignments" handed out by editorial leadership (reported by CNN )
 * A scientifically demonstrated tendency to use clickbait headlines,
 * - and a dozen other examples too numerous to mention. For full disclosure, I have regularly used BI stories in the past to reference content. In light of new learning from this discussion, I will refrain from doing so in the future and seek to replace it where I've added it. Chetsford (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC); edited 08:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have Holiday's book but I can't find the false Apple story in it. Can you provide some quotes from the book so that I can verify it? Im The IP  (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , page 188. Vexations (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I found it on page 182 in my version of the book. Though I can't see what is "factually incorrect" about it. Im The IP  (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The "potentially fake headline" was A leaked presentation reveals the document US hospitals are using to prepare for a major coronavirus outbreak. It estimates 96 million US coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths. In February this year, James Lawler presented a forecast of Covid pandemic in the U.S. at a webinar held by the American Hospital Association (AHA). He predicted 480,000 deaths and 96 million infections and encouraged hospitals to "prepare" for an epidemic of that magnitude. PolitiFact rated BI's article false because it wasn't shown that hospitals were actually "preparing" for that. According to PolitiFact, the AHA declined to respond when asked whether they were "preparing" for that or not. Im The IP  (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PolitiFact rated it "false." I'm not qualified to independently analyze, research or apply qualifications or caveats to PolitiFact's reporting and conclusions. Chetsford (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article about clickbait, Crowdsourcing a Large Corpus of Clickbait on Twitter, does not claim that BI has a "scientifically demonstrated tendency to use clickbait headlines". The only meaningful statistics presented is figure 4 on page 1506. The figure shows that the publishers with the least amount of clickbait are ABC News and FOX News. The publishers with the most amount of clickbait are Breitbart News, BuzzFeed, Yahoo, Mashable, and Forbes. BI is somewhere in the middle, with about the same amount of clickbait as Washington Post, and Independent. The authors do not state how many headlines there were from each publisher so it is hard to draw any hard and fast conclusions. Im The IP  (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Dunno about reliability, but they shouldn’t be accepted for showing notability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3, leaning 4. 's sleuthing has convinced me (for those keeping score, I have now !voted every possible !vote in this RfC). The stories about BI in Trust Me, I'm Lying are enough to put me over the edge of considering BI generally unreliable. On the other hand, it is frequently cited by fact checkers . Those fact checkers may need to update their policies, but I'm not quite ready to discount their reliance on BI. We shouldn't be relying on them, though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2, leaning 3 - as suggested by their use by fact-checkers and the high rating given by Ad Fontes, most of their content appears reliable. However they clearly also have ethical issues and conduct sensationalist reporting and some factually inaccurate reporting. I would suggest treating as something along the lines of the Mirror or the Metro. (note, MB/FC also records this failed fact check). ~ El D. (talk to me) 12:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: I can see no reason to limit use if this source. Examples listed above are not convincing. E.g. the Snowden story was also published by other outlets such as the Wall Street Journal. Business Insider did make a correction to its story. Sensationalist headlines are not relevant to what we do as headlines are not treated as reliable sources for our content. Burrobert (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: I have used this source occasionally, and have never found it to be inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2, leaning 3 per Springee and Chetsford. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2, while the information provided by Chetsford does give me pause, they are still well-respected by fact-checking organisations, and I find their journalism to be generally solid, if click-baity. They are certainly do not deserve a green tick, but I do not think I would consider them generally unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per Columbia Journalism Review, The New Yorker , The Intercept , and CNN  (h/t Chetsford). We can do better for our readers. There is no information that Business Insider provides that is not provided by some other, better source. There's no reason to use it. Also echoing Chetsford that we only have one standard to apply: if RS consider an outlet RS, it's RS; otherwise it's not. Editors' personal opinions or experience with a source are totally irrelevant. Levivich harass/hound 03:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've opened the CNN link and I'm not sure why it supports Option 3. It does talk about the turnover of staff at BI attributed to the pressure to get more traffic - surely the case at many news outlets today - but how does it support the conclusion that it's unreliable? Alaexis¿question? 08:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the first four support the conclusion that it's unreliable, then it doesn't matter if everyone is sure about the fifth. But a source that, as CNN reports, is run by a guy who was banned by the government for fraud, and who is causing journalists to leave by pressuring them to produce more content and get more scoops, at the expense of journalism, is not a source I would want to use to support any statement in any article. Levivich harass/hound 17:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened it at random, you will forgive me for doubting the rest as well now. The personality of the owner does not directly affect the reliability, you need to prove that his behaviour somehow made the reporting unreliable. Alaexis¿question? 21:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will also forgive you for wasting my time. Levivich harass/hound 23:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the owner (the owner is Axel Springer), it's the head of editorial; that very much and very directly impacts reliability. Chetsford (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 for sure, unless BI has gotten significantly worse in the past year. Yes, they're very clickbaity, and yes, there's blog-esque content which is worthless, but that describes quite a lot of media nowadays.  As long as non-bloggy work is cited and the usual rule of "completely ignore the headline" is followed (which is good advice even for "respectable" newspapers), they're still potentially usable.  SnowFire (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree but that doesn't mean we should lower our standards accordingly. We should just use a lot less news media than we currently do, across the site. News media is good for breaking news, pop culture, and that's about it. Levivich harass/hound 17:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 There is a lot of discussion about the clickbaitiness of BI but that is not reason enough to put it into the unreliable categories. The sources  provides show that it is not a paragon of reliability but it does generally at least pay more than lip service to journalistic standards.  It does publish information that it shouldn't and so can't be reasonably considered to be in Option 1 but it does not reach the same level that lumps it into the post-truth nonsense sourcing group that has been deprecated here.  The BI is not just an aggregator of other outlets' stories and not everything it publishes is available elsewhere.  If a better source for the same information exists, it would be preferred but it should not be rejected out of hand. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:
 * 1) FF7400; color:
 * 2) FFFFFF;">Eggishorn ]] (talk) (contrib) 17:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 3 It is not clear that all BI articles are subject to meaningful editorial oversight. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Its clickbaitness makes me reluctant to establish notability or assert facts under WP:DUE Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per ImTheIPand Beyond My Ken. The large majority of their reporting is accurate and often used by other news organizations. We don't have to include a specific article if we have another reliable source contradicting it. However, if we don't have evidence that a specific story is untrue, then we don't have a reason to drop a Business Insider article as a source. No evidence has been presented that the minor errors that occasionally crop up are a systematic problem. Jediting1 (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 leaning to Option 1. Have read BI for many years, and consider it a decent source on financial (and tech) matters. The clickbait aspect stops me from a full Option 1, however, they are explicit about when a piece is featured/advertising-driven.  I have read articles in the WSJ and FT that are biased but are not presented that way, and in particular that generally uphold "consensus view" on Wall Street.  In contrast, BI often covers the material written by major analysts that aren't covered in the WSJ/FT, but who are followed widely in markets. Britishfinance (User talk:Britishfinancetalk) 17:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3, at least for certain non-financial topics. The is known for editorializing and clickbait headlines. For example, I once replaced a BI reference on Fermi paradox that is unduly alarmist. It makes some claims about the climate change model that are not supported by a Scientific American interview with the author, Adam Frank — for example, the Frank claims that the model is not intended for making specific real-world predictions, but the BI article presents it as evidence that humanity is doomed. BI does not clearly differentiate between staff, contributor, and republished pieces. It contrasts even with many of the alarmist stories reviewed at Climate Feedback. I do not know anything about its financial news. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 03:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2, certainly not opposed to Option 3. BI's editorializing on non-business topics is egregious and astonishing. In a recent article on the proposed decomissioning of the ISS, they made the unsubstantiated, and frankly unsupportable assertion that the ISS's true value was unachievable before Space Exploration Inc came on the scene . I know it seems petty to point out just one example, but this is a pattern with that outlet. Editorializing and clickbait galore, possibly with an interest in boosting the subjects they write about. For example, in the same article, they claim that "NASA had "to abandon low-Earth orbit and cede that territory", but that it could be averted "But if all goes according to plan for Axiom Space, the fast-growing private aerospace company will manage to stave off that future and continue a strong and continuous US presence in low-Earth orbit. In turn, NASA could save billions for year while having access to a new, state-of-the-art facility.". Axiom Space, for what it's worth, is essentially a non-entity in the spaceflight community. They have no products, 60 staff, and a lot of promised "will do" on the back of SpaceX. Utterly editorialized outlet. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 03:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - The problems with BI have been presented pretty thoroughly by Chetsford, Levivich, et al. and I think there's clear evidence that its tendency towards clickbait, some ambiguity regarding promotional content, and push for content over quality more or less disqualify it as an outright "reliable," but I have not seen the level of evidence of inaccuracy and running afoul of traditional journalistic values that I typically see for sources we label generally unreliable. This seems like a clear option 2 for me, but I'll dig a little deeper when I have more time. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on links cited by other contributors I would tentatively say option 2 would be most appropriate, with editors advised to beware of sensationalist claims in headlines, avoid citing the site for surprising or extraordinary claims not present in other sources, and carefully check articles for advertising partners' promotional influence. I would urge any closer to be cautious in deeming such a widely-used source to be generally unreliable or deprecation-worthy without a clear consensus. – Teratix ₵ 14:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 They have a clickbait problem and have put out some rather dubious content but I'm still leaning more towards option 2. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 comparable to BuzzFeed in terms of clickbaitness. feminist (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Business Insider)

 * General note: Business Insider is currently listed as no consensus at WP:RSP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Why are you doing this? The current listing at RSP is "no consensus", with some additional considerations. And you put up this RFC hoping to get that changed to... "unclear, additional considerations apply". This is a giant waste of time. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm doing this in the hopes of getting a clearer consensus on its reliability, because it is frequently used on Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute to the RfC, instead of disparaging it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with RRC -- this is a giant waste of time. If you don't think it should be used, remove it; if you think it should be used, use it; if other people object, discuss it with them; if the discussion fails to produce a local consensus, then finally there is a purpose to a broader discussion like an RfC.  There are an infinite number of sources, it is ridiculous to hold RfCs without concrete need.  Please withdraw it. --JBL (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. This source has been discussed at RSN numerous times without consensus, and has been used as a source—on high-traffic articles such as Barack Obama and Donald Trump, among many others—more than 12,000 times. Of course, someone else can close it early if it does not attract sufficient attention, but I think there is a need to form a clearer consensus on this source and that's why I've started this RfC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * JBL, considering that all of your recent contributions to this noticeboard are complaining about RfC's rather than any meaningful additions, maybe you should just unwatch the page like you said you would?. Business Insider is used over 12,000 times making it have a similar number of citations to Fox News, not just some random source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hemiauchenia, I think the appropriate place for a personal comment like that would have been my talk-page. This page is not on my watchlist, I ceased participating in the discussion you mention, and I have not left more than one or two comments in any discussion since.  The fact of the matter is a lot of people seem to create RfCs here that are totally unnecessary, and this is one of them.  Try to complete the following sentence in a way that isn't absurd: "Having this RfC come to the conclusion AP prefers will make the world better in the following way: ...." It is my impression that, once upon a time, discussion on this page was concentrated on the use of particular sources in particular contexts.  That was valuable; this is not. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I note that they do have a corrections policy. Though it seems to be oriented towards authors making corrections, not readers asking for corrections. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of actual fabrication, that would make it worth serious consideration of deprecation? - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any; it more seems like they are accused of playing "fast and loose" with their reporting, but no indication that they have outright lied. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Although, MediaBiasFactCheck indicates that at least one BI story was rated false by FactCheck.org here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There now is evidence of at least publishing false stories, if not "fabricating". See Chetsford's comments and my most recent !vote above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Another source to throw into the mix: https://www.imediaethics.org/business-insider-will-give-anyone-anonymity/, although it's quite old and the relevant policy may have changed. And another, about their native advertising: https://archives.cjr.org/the_audit/business_insider_goes_native.php AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Keep in mind that a lot of Business Insider articles are written to promote products and they take sales commissions (affiliate marketing). There is usually a disclaimer in these articles. As much as they insist that their reviewer teams are independent from their sales team, they are obviously in a financial conflict of interest and they are rewarded by making positive reviews (positive reviews, more clicks, more sales, more income). I think these particular articles should not be used at all. --MarioGom (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed wording at RSP
As this RfC seems to be winding down, I thought I'd get the ball rolling on a proposed revision to the text at WP:RSP. It currently reads:

I think that text should be replaced with:

I have stolen some of this wording from. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of this RfC is that the current consensus of Option 2 still stands, which is about right? This new wording implies a downgrade in my view (e.g. "caution", "replaced").  BI, for financial articles, is almost – but not exactly – as reliable as the WSJ and FT.  Given that its main focus is on financial articles (and latterly tech articles, but with a financial focus), I think your proposed wording is too negative on the overall site? If we had to change the wording (which I am not sure we should), my proposal would be more like this:


 * Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any consensus for the specific claim that the site's financial articles are considered reasonably reliable. I do see consensus for the claim that BI should be used with caution, since the vast majority of !votes are for options 2, 3, or 4. I also think native advertising should go somewhere in RSP (for sourcing on that, see Business Insider). I may have gone a little overboard with "replaced with another source", though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it is not up to us to decide or suggest a summary for the noticeboard. An uninvolved editor will provide the summary. Burrobert (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it is not up to us to decide or suggest a summary for the noticeboard. An uninvolved editor will provide the summary. Burrobert (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC - The Raw Story
While editing the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, I encountered The Raw Story. I've occasionally seen others cite this source, so how reliable is The Raw Story?--WMrapids (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pick an option below and explain your reasons why:
 * Option 1 - The Raw Story is a reliable source.
 * Option 2 - The Raw Story is a marginally reliable source, or should only be used under circumstances.
 * Option 3 - The Raw Story is an unreliable source.
 * Option 4 - The Raw Story needs to be deprecated.

Responses (The Raw Story)

 * Option 1, Generally Reliable. Obviously, editorials should be attributed per policy, but beyond that I find no evidence of publishing deliberate falsehoods, failure to fact-check, or other similar issues. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Headlines are inflammatory, content is poor and derivative, and articles are generally short. It does not strike me as a professional media outlet on the level of what is generally considered reliable. As of right now these are their front page articles :
 * "Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley's presidential hopes crippled after election stunt led to Capitol violence: report" — a rehash of a Politico article.
 * "Trump's loss of social media accounts has him scrambling to stay the center of attention: CNN" — a few quotes of what a CNN commentator said.
 * "'Full scrub' of Trump loyalists in government needed to protect Joe Biden: security expert" — a rehash of what an expert said on MSNBC.
 * "How the Capitol siege has crippled Trump kids' political futures" - a summary of Daily Beast column.
 * "Michael Cohen offers a glimpse inside the dark world of an unhinged Twitter-less Trump — what Michael Cohen said on a podcast.--JBchrch (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * so your argument is.. you don't like the stories they cover? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, news sources that have low editorial standards and are opinionated should be treated carefully.--JBchrch (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: While poking around, I found that their Raw Story Investigates page has more in-depth and original content. Not sure on the quality, but thought I should share this as well.--WMrapids (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 1 It is very clearly a biased source in that it has certain political leanings, but I see no evidence of its reporting being unreliable. Unlike sources like Breitbart, i've never heard of Raw Story reporting false information (or not retracting it if it did happen, which is also important). Silver  seren C 05:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 2 lean towards Option 3 They are a pretty biased paper, which while not always a problem, coupled with ties to AlterNet makes me careful of them. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 no evidence of unreliability but opinion pieces should be attributed, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 the paper is definitely sensationalist, which tends to lead to dropping inconvenient information. That being said, the editors are all career journalists with experience writing on a broad range of topics. Going to my area of knowledge, the editor Eric W. Dolan writes articles on another place about psychology research, and the coverage of the research is way more accurate than you usually get for psychology (I mention this as an example because editors that prioritise accuracy in other situations lead to articles edited by them being more likely to be accurate). I don't know if this affects my position, but it seems to be that RawStory summarises other news sources rather than generating them. --Xurizuri (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 The sensationalist nature of the source means they may skew the presentation in a way that creates a false impression even if no specific fact is incorrect. Also, as sensationalist and heavily biased source is a poor place to establish WEIGHT for inclusion.  So if Raw Story is claiming a Tweet by Mr X caused a controversy they may have shown that some people reacted to a Tweet.  That doesn't mean this material is DUE in a Wikipedia article about Mr X or the subject of the Tweet.  Springee (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1.5 The impression I get is similar to The Daily Beast, and it should be handled similarly; reliable with a known bias. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Sensationalist churnalism. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward 3 given Chetsford's comment below. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4 Bias is just fine, that should not deter us. However, TRS is problematic for its factual reporting. There are numerous red flags; here are just a few of scores I discovered:
 * PolitiFact reports a recent case of a "false" story published by TRS
 * PolitiFact also alleges TRS published election-related misinformation.
 * Snopes reports another instance of a false story by TRS ...
 * ... and another false story noted by Snopes here ...
 * ... as well as an unproven but questionable story noted by Snopes.
 * The Oxford University Press book Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics chronicles yet another instance of false information published by TRS.
 * Boston Magazine reports on yet another uncorrected, incorrect publication by TRS.
 * In this interview the site's editor suggested they had stripped away, or minimalized, the gatekeeping process, which is a line that separates journalism from blogging.
 * If anyone wants another dozen examples, ping me. I could keep going but I'd be here all night. Chetsford (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 3 - I would like to be a fan of Raw Story, but I am not. It is almost never the "raw" story, but a reblogging with gratuitous bias added - its stock in trade is to take articles from other sources, and put a liberal-outrage-porn spin and clickbait headline on them. You can never take a Raw Story article at face value - it is rarely actual fake news, but you will need to de-spin its content, and you should basically use the original source instead. Often they slip up, and have been noted for their sloppiness and errors in Snopes - . I would not rate them as "deprecate" because they don't seem to go into outright fabrication - but Raw Story is sloppy as hell, definitely generally unreliable, and you should always check the original source and see if it actually supports the claim - David Gerard (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3. Seriously, people? Sure, there are a few reasonably well done original pieces there but for the most part it's little better than Occupy Democrats. Here's what to do if something comes in from Raw Story: check it out on more reliable sources, verify it's accurate, and, if it is... use the reliable sources instead. Tabloid levels of accuracy and sensationalism plus high political bias makes this a source on which we cannot depend. Generally does not mean always - there are cases where reasonable people could make a case for inclusion - but it falls well below the standards to which we should aspire, and I strongly suspect that it's mainly being used to source up to the minute breaking news, which we should not do. Start killing off these low quality politically activist sources. Their coverage can be taken as talk page indication there might be something worth researching, and we really should not use them any further than that. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per above. feminist (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 per Chetsford. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - It is quite opinionated. Anything taken from it should be attributed, but I am not sure if it is a weighty enough a source for attributed mentions either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - Generally low quality. In some rare circumstances they do have some pieces of note&mdash;for example, a 2014 New York Times blog noted a Raw Story post on literature and a 2008 Columbia Journalism Review article said that one of the Raw Story's pieces on coal was "a well-done article.". But this is not a top-tier source and we should generally avoid it. Neutralitytalk 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 - Per above. Fine with attribution in some circumstances, but their history is too spotty to be considered reliable.LM2000 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)