Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347

Roman et. al. Ivermectin Meta-Analysis Abstract Inconsistencies
Context: I am a new editor to Wikipedia and interested in clarity on how WP:MEDRS applies in a case where a study is presented in an otherwise high-quality journal where the conclusions do not seem to follow from the underlying data data. Please let me know if I am overstepping my bound here but I would like some further clarity on how sources are handled.

Abstract:
 * Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI -0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM.

I read the fulltext Roman et al. paper and I am not sure I understand how their conclusions follow from the data. For all cause mortality they report risk with ivermectin 2 per 100 vs 6 per 100 with control; RR 0.37 (0.12 to 1.13) with very low certainty of evidence. This contradicts an earlier version of the paper where all-cause mortality was reported as RR 1.11 (0.16 to 7.65) - their conclusion of "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.16-7.65, very low QoE)" makes sense for the earlier version with RR 1.1 but the latest revision just does not make sense. "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE)" Can someone please explain how a RR of 0.37 for all-cause mortality is not a reduction? I understand that the confidence interval is wide but based on my reading of the data they present, their conclusions do not follow from the data they present.

Relative risk is "the ratio of the probability of an outcome in an exposed group to the probability of an outcome in an unexposed group." If all-cause mortality RR for ivermectin-treated patients is 0.37 the conclusion of IVM not reducing all-cause mortality is false. From Relative_risk "RR < 1 means that the risk of the outcome is decreased by the exposure, which can be called a "protective factor."

I have tried discussing this at Talk:Ivermectin but my concerns were dismissed with WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't think it's a stretch to question a study if the actual abstract seems to include an apparent inconsistency. "IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls" does not seem like an accurate interpretation of the data they present; "IVM reduced all-cause mortality, but the reduction was not statistically significant" would be an appropriate interpretation. I see this has also been discussed under Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where brought up the same concerns and think it warrants a further dedicated discussion. Caprilyc (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The author is "Roman" not "Romat" and it's a systematic review, not a case study. The place to ask would be WT:MED but it's likely you'd get the same answer there: it's not for Wikipedia editors to think they know better than the authors, whose conclusions are quite clear. Alexbrn (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for typo in section heading; I fixed that. And I didn't write "case study" I wrote "in a case where a study." I'm sorry if the wording wasn't clear but my understanding was that a meta-analysis is a type of study which summarizes existing research as opposed to providing novel experimental results. Caprilyc (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you answered it yourself. While RR equals 0.37 the 95% confidence interval is 0.12 to 1.13, so for all we know it might increase the mortality. We need to wait for studies with larger samples. Alaexis¿question? 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the response but I am not sure I made my question clear... I am not confused about the implications of the RR and CI. The data seem to indicate that there is a potential benefit, but low certainty of evidence. I am confused about the conclusions the authors drew based on those statistics because it seems that they are making an assertion (IVM does not reduce all-cause mortality) that is unsupported by the RR and CI. There is a difference between (A) no difference between intervention and control group and (B) a difference between intervention and control group that is not statistically significant and (C) a statistically significant difference. I agree that in order to conclude IVM is an effective treatment we would need (C). My main point is for the study in question their data says (B) but their conclusion shows (A). Caprilyc (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You will always get some difference when you do real-life studies, and it's either statistically significant or not. In other words (A) and (B) are the same. Alaexis¿question? 18:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * We cannot question the conclusions of a study based on our analysis of the data, per No original research. If the conclusions are wrong, then we expect either a correction from the authors and publisher or cricicism of the report in the literature.
 * Bear in mind that reliable sources will frequently be wrong. Since Wikipedia articles summarize reliable sources, its articles will also contain these errors. But Wikipedia should not be the forum for correcting errors that occur in reliable sources.
 * TFD (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does No original research apply in a case where the abstract itself is not logically consistent? If I read a study in Nature where the abstract reads "Compared mice on a high-fat diet with those on a low-fat diet. 20% of mice fed a low-fat diet died, vs. 5% of mice on a high-fat diet. We conclude high-fat diet decreased survival." This may be a silly oversimplified example but I am trying to illustrate the point that the conclusions and data in the abstract of the paper simply do not add up. I am not basing this assessment on any external work but merely a logical inconsistency in the abstract itself. Caprilyc (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like/understand something does not make it "inconsistent". The authors are free to conclude what they want and their elision is perfectly logical - they are the experts and their peer-reviewed findings are published in a highly-reputable source here. The background to all this, is that this supposed "inconsistency" has been doing the rounds on pro-ivermectin quackery sites as the smoking gun which is meant to invalidate the paper, which the ivermectin boosters don't like. Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I am still not sure you understand my core point here. I am not disagreeing with the data the authors present but a basic tenet of scientific research is that you can't make up conclusions without the data to back them up. The authors present data which is in direct contradiction with their stated conclusions, in the abstract of the paper itself. It's basic statistics. If I am wrong in my interpretation of what relative risk and confidence intervals mean, please feel free to correct me, but dismissing this criticism with a cheap shot to derail the conversation by making it smell like pro-ivermectin quackery is not helpful to the conversation. I have not seen this criticism raised elsewhere and arrived at it based on my reading of the abstract of the Roman et al paper itself. As brought up the same concerns earlier on this page I am not surprised that there would be multiple points of criticism of the paper available elsewhere online. This is a valid criticism, not quackery. Caprilyc (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In a similar vein, you should always remain critical of research even if you agree with its conclusions. Caprilyc (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are welcome to write a letter to the journals' editor, engage the authors of the paper in discussion, or publish your opinion in a different venue. This, however, is not an appropriate place to register your concern or disagreement with a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal. I strongly support and recommend that someone close this discussion entirely. ElKevbo (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. In terms of policy, it's clear that we must accept the findings in the paper. This is not the forum to discuss whether or not that policy should be changed. TFD (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The results are inconclusive, to a degree; you certainly can't use this analysis to claim that Ivermectin should be used as treatment of COVID. On the other hand, the results of the analysis do not say that Ivermectin is definitely ineffective either.  This is a very small meta-analysis by unknown academics in an somewhat obscure journal; their personal analysis must not be taken as gospel.  If it were not mentioned in the earlier Vice article, I would encourage simply ignoring the study.  I have other concerns on the topic, but they are not relevant to Wikipedia and I decline to address them here. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pervasive Abuse of RS as a Cloak for NPOV
In several conflicts I've been a part of, there is a contingent of politically aligned editors who use a pernicious technique to justify inclusion of propaganda.

First, they add mere polemic to an otherwise factual encyclopedic entry. This usually takes the form of Politician 1 saying X, where X is his political OPINION.

As a "reliable source," the propagandist cites some newspaper article quoting Politician 1 as saying X in a specious attempt to turn an opinion into a fact. In these cases, there is tacit collusion between the editor, the politician, and the news source all of whom share the same political beliefs.

Any attempt to remove this blatant NPOV by someone following Wikipedia standards is immediately reverted, usually by the original editor.

The person seeking compliance then has two choices: (1) seek consensus in Talk or (2) delete the offensive text again.

Choosing 1 is an exercise in futility. The editor who originally inserted the offending material and/or his allies will stonewall the discussion. They might ignore it entirely, leading to a status quo basis in favor of keeping text clearly violative of NPOV. If discussion arises, they enlist help from their allies to present the appearance of a majority or consensus. They remain solidified in their view of keeping the violative text. They dont debate, they gibber. They see no one else's point of view. Their reasons are never substantive.

Choosing 2 results in allegations of edit warring against the person actually enforcing Wikipedia standards. It is the cancel culture of this platform.

The propagandists dont understand or misrepresent consensus. Often times they claim consensus in their favor when none exists; they merely assert it.

Consensus doesn't mean a majority. It doesnt mean the ones with the most stubborn positions win. Consensus means that there exist no reasonable disputes over the content of what is INCLUDED in the entry.

To make this more clear, consensus is a bias in favor of EXCLUDING controversial material in an entry. People have to generally agree that what is shown is factual and correct.

But the tactic of the propagandists is to create a status quo bias in favor of INCLUDING material offending wikipedia standards. They win when no one challenges them. They win when someone edits them. They win when admins or mods step in. It is a rigged game.

Larry Sanger pointed this out when he criticized how Wikipedia has become a propaganda machine for leftist dogma. Every contentious entry is polluted with their POV, and all other points of view are excluded.

A source that merely reports an opinion isnt a RS. Reporting opinions does not make statements into facts.

Think for a moment how this could play out. Any side of a political subject could inundate entries with page after page of "This guy said this." There could be endless warring of opinions on every topic. Unfortunately, some of us have higher opportunity costs and more maturity than others to engage in this pettiness.

This is not the environment of truth, objectivity, and comity that wikipedia originally sought to create. I suggest that WP:RS make it clear that reciting an opinion by an otherwise RS does not make it a RS for a factual contention. The practice of law specifically excludes such conclusory, hearsay, and non expert testimony as irrelevant, inflammatory, and prejudicial and WP should also do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we cite a source saying X says Y, it should generally only be used for an in-article statement of X says Y. Assuming the source is reliable, it can be used that way; however, it is sometimes reasonable to argue over whether a particular quote is WP:DUE or whether using the source for that and nothing else is representing it proportionately.  eg. if a source is a massive news piece about how Y is wrong and then quotes one non-expert at the end saying Y, using it just for that quote is obviously misusing it unless the article reflects the actual focus of the sources.  I do agree that in some cases editors will use non-expert opinions in ways that are clearly intended to convince the reader of what the person is saying rather than report what the person is saying...  but at the same time, the positions held by noteworthy figures are often important to cover, and prominent politicians in particular are often an example of people whose opinions we have to cover even if the sources outright say they're wrong.  In those cases you should look at the sources used to make sure they're reflected properly, and look for other sources that have covered those comments to provided context; or expand the article elsewhere with non-opinion sources so we're not putting undue weight on opinion.  (Though some care should be taken with trying to use other sources to "refute" an opinion; if it doesn't directly discuss that person's opinion then it might be WP:SYNTH, so they should be structured to avoid an outright "X says Y, but the facts are Z" unless we have a source directly making that conclusion or directly analyzing their statement.  Fact-checking sites are good for this.  If someone says something you feel is blatantly wrong and no sources have taken enough notice of it to rebut it, you might consider whether the statement itself is WP:DUE; or, conversely, whether the fact that they're wrong is WP:DUE.)  --Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems more of a WP:UNDUE issue than an RS issue. It may well be fact (cited to a reliable source) that Politician A said “X is true”… but that fact is not necessarily worth mentioning except (perhaps) in the article about Politician A.  This is one of the reasons why our Verifiability policy says that “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.” Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Without clear and convincing examples, this isn't really something this page can help you with. What are the three best examples you can think of? What were the three examples that really convinced you this was a problem? - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on their recent edits I think they object to this section and some other parts of the article.  The section contains almost no opinion, but it is not uncommon for new users to have a blurry sense of the line there. Rmmiller44, that section contains 23 citations.  Which one in particular do you object to? --Aquillion (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading the moment I saw the word "OPINION" in caps, because I've never once read anything on the internet which capitalized that word in that way which wasn't a complete waste of time. But I've got some general advice, based on the words preceding that one: Listen to experienced editors. They know what they're talking about, as a result of, you know, being experienced and all. If they're all telling you that you're wrong, you're better off asking "what can I do to be right?" than complaining here, where a whole bunch of other experienced editors are just going to join the "you're wrong" choir.
 * I'll do the Basso profundo, if y'all don't mind me getting a little pitchy (I can hold a tune in a baritone, though). Assuming my Type O Negative cover band doesn't book a gig. (Which is likely, as we haven't even practiced in about 20 years...)
 * Oh wait, I happened to notice as I was scrolling down that you namedropped Larry Sanger. Color me unsurprised. Here's another pro-tip from an experienced editor: Don't listen to Larry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is bloody amusing to me that many advocates of alternative sources like to latch onto Mr. Sanger as an example for why we ought to listen to them, for the simple fact that he co-founded Wikipedia. I guess therefore that makes him a paragon of the five pillars? I don't know. (I'm not sure I want to know.) WaltCip- (talk)  23:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read his blog? The only difference between him and one of those new editors who go on a tear, ranting about WP's censorship and bias and hurling insults at anyone who addresses them is that he does his ranting on a blog. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Rmmiller44,
 * First of all, you are correct. WP:NPOV is no longer a Wikipedia policy in any meaningful sense. Major conservative stories don't appear in Wikipedia, the article on communism doesn't mention communist famines, it's a struggle to get fair treatment for the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of covid, and so on ad infinitum.
 * However, being correct won't help you. If you continue down this path, I say with regret that you are likely to end up being blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted. This is just a fact of life that you have to be realistic about. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate to hear that WP:NPOV isn't working out for your views. I would note that Conservapedia exists and is still active - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Note this refers to an active dispute over at AR-15 style rifle about the inclusion of this [] section, which does not in fact really use any politician as a source for any anti-gun claim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I can find no reference to a politicians opinion could you provide some examples of the content and sources you object to?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this is not the place to discuss user conduct or motives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * AR-15 style rifle is becoming bogged down in a culture war. Some users don't want to say anything bad about the rifle or its use in mass shootings, even though this is discussed in reliable sources. The article makes clear that most firearms deaths in the USA involve the use of handguns. As I've said before, the problem is not AR-15 style rifles but whether citizens should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons as a whole. This is a legitimate subject of debate and cannot be removed simply because some users do not like the sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually if it was badly sourced it would be a good reason to remove it. But I am yet to see a persuasive argument it is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * From time to time, it is worthwhile reporting people's opinions in articles, particularly in political topics which by definition involve matters of opinion. How would you write the Capital punishment debate in the United States without citing any opinions? Which opinions should be presented and what weight they should be given is a matter of neutral point of view, rather than reliable sourcing. I disagree with 's comment that NPOV isn't being followed. The reason "conservative" views don't get the same weight is that they don't get the same weight in reliable sources. Science textbooks for example don't give much weight to Creation Science. Conservative views do however get coverage in articles about conservatives. For example, the opinions of leading U.S. conservatives are reported in Conservatism in the United States. TFD (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

American Journal of Health Behavior
This journal, which a cursory search shows is cited in many articles, at least some of which are directly related to vaping, is reported by the New York Times to have accepted $51,000 from e-cig company Juul "to have the entire May/June issue [...] devoted to publishing 11 studies funded by the company offering evidence that Juul products help smokers quit." Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Probably not a good thing but also probably more common than we know. This shouldn't however be a problem, since WP:MEDRS policy prevents findings of original studies from being used until they gain acceptance in the literature. Because of the low impact of the journal (1.5), it is unlikely to have much influence on scientific opinion. TFD (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also raised (wrong place) at WT:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another article about this: 2602:24A:DE47:BA60:8FCB:EA4E:7FBD:4814 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Laundering Swarajya and citing opinion articles
The article on Audrey Truschke (a BLP) has serious issues with citing unreliable sources. Among the issues are My attempts to fix these issues were reverted by . Instead of addressing my concerns, they accused me of edit warring. Perhaps they would like to explain their actions here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cites an opinion piece from Newslaundry for a letter allegedly written to Swarajya. As you can confirm by checking WP:RSP, Swarajya is blacklisted and considered unreliable. Also, opinion pieces are rarely reliable, regardless of the outlet.
 * The article also states, "Other scholars critiqued her translation, as well." This is cited to two opinion pieces. Violates MOS:WEASEL to boot.
 * A further issue is the sentence in the lead stating, "She has been accused of engaging in prejudiced commentary on Hinduism." This is not supported by any source and is written in hopelessly loaded language (see MOS:WEASEL)
 * The Newslaundry opinion piece should be discarded, it's from a non-expert and quotes Swarajya. Zutshi's column in The Hindu seems to refer to the letter's author Robert Goldman but doesn't specify where he got Goldman's response from. Both of them are op-eds, the response needs a non-editorial reliable secondary source if it needs to be included in the article at all.
 * Other than the above, I don't think this is a question of reliable sources but of proportion and due weight, the section is larger than the rest of the article combined so trimming is necessary. It should summarise the entire episode with sources that do so rather than give a detailed account of it including who said what, along with primary sources as it does now. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is not for disputing DUEness of topics. Truschke herself accepts the validity of the email in her rejoinder and I don't particularly oppose removal of the NL OpEd either. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is not for disputing DUEness of topics. Truschke herself accepts the validity of the email in her rejoinder and I don't particularly oppose removal of the NL OpEd either. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Greek City Times
removed my edit on Turkish people page, because they said that Greek City Times is not a reliable source. Could you please share your thought on whether it is a reliable source? Thanks.--V. E. (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Very much legitimate removal. That article is obvious bullshit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Judging by your earlier edits here, I can see that you show a pattern of not liking sources on Turkey related articles. Your attitude and word choice do not help to the discussion either. So, I would like to state that from now on I will ignore your opinions.--V. E. (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not a reliable source. There's no masthead with named editors and most of the articles are anonymous or by non-professionals with blank by-lines. Very few reputable news outlets cite them in Google News. Their articles are a mix of gossipy "celebrity X was in Greece", clickbaity sensationalist headlines, but everyone else passes away peacefully. Oh, and they like to say that with Greek heroes who died 150+ years ago as well. That's the type of stuff you see from low-quality location-specific churnalism. And then you've got anti-Turkish Greek nationalism, like articles on genetics by experts in religion and geology (your source). Woodroar (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think a source is unreliable, you need another source to confirm that it is unreliable. Reliability is about whether info given in a source is accurate which you didn't seem to prove in this case. Even all these Turkish newssites from different political specturms (leftist) (pro-government)  (kemalist)  cite Greek City Times as a source. Every source can have its bias (Greek nationalism, Turkish nationalism etc.) but this doesn't mean it is unreliable. See reliable sources may be non neutral for more information.--V. E. (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, I've been doing source analysis on Wikipedia for more than a decade. It's part of my actual job, too. What you're saying here is a mixture of wrong and irrelevant. I suggest you listen to other editors when they say that this source is unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what you say but another editor Chetsford who also parcitipates in RS dicussions states that "as editors, we aren't qualified to engage in media analysis. A source is reliable if reliable sources indicate it is, and unreliable if they say otherwise."--V. E. (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. Part of that is likely because we're talking about two meanings of "source" here: general (at the publisher level) and specific (articles, news broadcasts, etc.). Chetsford is saying that we don't analyze the claims being made by a specific source to determine if they're correct or incorrect. It's not up to us to say that a video was edited to discredit someone or fact-check an anchor's findings. And they're correct, that's covered by WP:PRIMARY, which is part of our WP:NOR policy. But Chetsford does consider A Haber's gatekeeping process in their first reply to you and a source's physical presence in another discussion. These are things that we can and should consider when looking at a general source's reliability. Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion. Just one thing confuses me. I said to Chetsford that the source contained clickbaity titles just like you did for this source (my 3rd bullet point) but I think his comment of "media analysis" also referred to that part as well as the video part. Of course I am not expecting you to read somebody else's mind but was I right when saying "They have titles like "Burcu Yazgı Coşkun surprised everyone! Nobody knew this." which reads like a tabloid newspaper."? Was it a valid argument? What is your personal opinion about that? --V. E. (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, clickbaity headlines are a red flag, absolutely, but they're just one factor to consider. Unfortunately, a lot of sites rely on outrage op-eds, affiliate links, and churnalism to stay in business. That's just how web publishing works now. But sources with good reputations know how to separate their legitimate journalism from everything else. Likewise, the best sources tend to avoid sensationalist headlines unless it's a really shocking story, but that's also changing. In fact, our WP:HEADLINES guideline says to ignore claims in headlines because they're often exaggerated or lack context. Woodroar (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source. This topic requires scholarly sources, not random news sites citing scholars with random opinions. –Austronesier (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources are already present in the article which show genetic relation between Turks and Central Asia. Greek City Times is used as a supplementary to quote Celal Şengör.--V. E. (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But why quote a non-expert (Celal Şengör) from a non-reliable source (Greek City Times) with a statement that is just as simplistic as false? (Those "Greeks" were Hellenized ancient Anatolians with multiple ethnic backgrounds). –Austronesier (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is an older discussion on this website, . It appears, the founder created the website after he was kicked from his job at a different news org for being a stormfront contributor? Yeah, this is probably the last thing one should be using for genetics or for the matter anything else. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just want to chime in to say not a reliable source pretty obviously, mostly for the reasons Woodroar invoked above. No named staff, little indicia of reliability or fact checking, and as far as I can tell, no wider reputation for accuracy.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , as others have said, Greek City Times is not a reliable source. Also, Celal Şengör is a geologist and is not a subject matter expert with respect to genetics. You can't quote every random interview of every random "scholar" in all articles. This is an example of a high-quality source that would meet WP:MEDRS, and one of its authors - Omer Gokcumen - is an example of a subject matter expert, as he is actually in biological sciences with research focus on genomes and human biology. Bogazicili (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Greek City Times newspaper has been discussed before in this noticeboard, and there's a consensus about it's almost always unreliable. I personally would consider it as something equivalent to Daily Sabah or Yeni Akit per its reliability. Plus, Celal Şengör is not a subject expert in genetics, even though I would be able to consider themselves as an expert in geology; and therefore quoting Celal Şengör is irrelevant and not reliable on this case. Full stop. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not a reliable source for genetics. While I wouldn't rule out using it from time to time for other things, if someone were to aggregate all the sources we cite on Wikipedia this is not one that should be given too much weight overall. Spudlace (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Greek nationalist website. Not reliable. I searched "Greek City Times" on Google, pressed on the News section and clicked on the first article that mentioned Turkey in the title. This showed up and it's clearly biased. Note "Sultan Erdogan [...] will finally expose his trump card during the July 20th celebrations of Attila’s victory over the Greeks; his message will likely send shockwaves across the globe!", "Erdogan does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus and as always does what he likes", "It has been known that shaking hands with this man one soon discovers a few fingers missing and can never be trusted", "It is a known fact that one does not negotiate with bullies such as Turkey because they always come back for more and in the end, there are no fingers left!" and that's just the first paragraphs of one single article. I also remember another article of the same newspaper calling Turkey a fake nation occupying Greek land for 1,000 years or something like that. It simply is an aggresively nationalist website which should not be used for history or foreign policy topics of Greece in Wikipedia. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Beside GCT's ultranationalist headlines, Celal Sengor loves to speak in other topics like history etc. on tv shows, but he never claims those are academic words, more like hobby. A geologist, thus not reliable, not even talking about GCT. Beshogur (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk's Tweets
Elon Musk's tweets are often used in SpaceX articles such as SpaceX Starship. He is the owner of SpaceX and often announces things before anyone else. Can these be used as sources? Here are examples of Elon Musk's tweets about SpaceX: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1410670645948653568/photo/2 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1410537991236243461/photo/1 Elon Musk Tweet Elon Musk Tweet 2StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As an SPS they can be used for statements that are uncontroversial. But should be treated like any other corporate press accmo8uncment, as non-neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't we have this discussion recently? They are primary sources from SpaceX (or Tesla, ...), so they are fine for statements like "SpaceX plans ...", "SpaceX/Musk announced..." (explicitly, or implicitly if it's obvious/uncontroversial). --mfb (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mfb: Just so everyone knows, I will be on vacation starting today. I don't plan to return until the end of August. I won't be editing Wikipedia during that time. This is probably my last edit until I come back. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 14:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They should be fine as long as the announcement is reasonably uncontroversial and not self serving.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would use them with caution for announcements because there's often a risk that they will be unduly self-serving, especially if it's announcing something exciting, impressive, or exceptional. --Aquillion (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Musk's tweets are often noteworthy, and are the best source for statements about what Musk has tweeted. I would try to avoid them for any other purpose; if Musk is pre-announcing something related to SpaceX it is better to wait for an official announcement. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There generally is no official announcement though... Especially for topics relating to Starship it basically all comes from Musk and unofficial sources. I previously discussed on this topic here. Leijurv (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Elon's tweets, even for announcements related to SpaceX/etc. should be taken with grains of salt compared to official company releases, due to his propensity to be overexcited about things. If Elon tweeted "SpaceX will be on the moon by 2024!" that should not be read that Space plans to have a moon mission by 2024, until SpaceX's actual business releases something to that degree. He may not be lying, but it could be an exaggeration that it is better to wait for a clear statement from the company than from Elon. --M asem (t) 20:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Attribute as a primary source? But really we should only cover the tweets if the individual tweet is newsworthy - and many of Musk's tweets are - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that Tesla has explicitly confirmed that Elon Musk speaks for it via his Twitter account. SpaceX, as a private company, is not subject to the same rules and therefore does not have to make the same explicit confirmation, but the same is likely true for it, especially since Musk directly controls it as CEO and majority owner. I would apply WP:ABOUTSELF, with specific attribution to the Musk Twitter account and taking particular care in light of his past record with respect to factual accuracy. John M Baker (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Musk is CEO of SpaceX, so can of course make public announcements about SpaceX activities and plans. Moreover, SpaceX has eliminated the "external communications" / PR roles in the company and Musk is the de facto principal source of public information about SpaceX new development activities, with COO Shotwell, the website, and company twitter account used more for the operational aspects of SpaceX.  All of these, of course, are primary sources as many have noted, which are not as good as secondary sources for purposes of Wikipedia.  So better sources should be used when they are present.  And editors need to use good judgement about what material is article worthy and what is not.  But, yeah, of course CEO Musk tweets can be used to source some information in WP articles.  N2e (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Slightly concerned that no-one here has noted Musk's history of erratic and misinformed tweets. After the SEC sued him in violation of securities laws for making a false claim about Tesla, a specific court order was instituted requiring Tesla to vet (some of) his tweets about Tesla—and they may have failed to do this. So he's just not reliable for claims about Tesla, and I don't see why SpaceX would be different. I also don't know how comfortable we should be about the source of the infamous "pedo guy" tweet. This is an exception to WP:SPS/WP:ABOUTSELF because we have specific evidence that Musk is less reliable than other similar figures. And especially for very specific technical aeronautics information, why would we trust a company's figurehead to get it right off the top of their head rather than require at least an official document properly put together by the relevant subject experts? — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While concerns of this nature are well-taken (and my mention of Musk's past record with respect to factual accuracy was intended to reference them), WP:ABOUTSELF does apply to questionable sources. John M Baker (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Vice on Bret Weinstein
Bret Weinstein who made headlines back in 2017 due to the 2017 Evergreen State College protests, has returned as one of the main champions of Ivermectin an, anti-parasite drug that has been promoted as an effective cure for COVID-19, in the same way that Hydroxychloroquine was earlier in the pandemic, despite there being no good evidence for its effectiveness. Bret Weinstein's promotion of Ivermectin has been covered in two articles in Vice, Why Is the Intellectual Dark Web Suddenly Hyping an Unproven COVID Treatment? from the 24th of June and The Ivermectin Advocates' War Has Just Begun from the 1st of July. An IP on the talkpage is claiming that Vice is a low quality source than should not be used on BLP articles, and therefore these articles should be excluded. I am just not seeing the issue here. The claims that the Vice articles are making are not contentious. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say that VICE is fairly low quality (although just on the “reliable” side of the line) … It is prone to click-bait. There are far better sources that talk about both the drug and Dr. Weinstein’s recent promotion of it, use them instead. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless there are factual inaccuracies in this specific case, there is no reason to not use it. Headlines are not reliable and everyone especially publishers on the internet are prone to click-bait, that doesn't make them either high or low quality on its own. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The headline is irrelevant and I agree with you regarding click bait titles. The problem in my opinion is using VICE as a reliable source given the pretty obvious narrative and selectively ignoring certain pieces of it. For example, a new vice article that came out yesterday by the same author as this one associates Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss with weinstein and their quackery, yet I imagine I would face severe backlash if I wanted to add relevant sections to their living biography entries detailing how they are spreading misinformation (according to vice entertaining the idea ivermectin is valid is quackery and there is no censorship occurring). I elaborated | here with a much more detailed breakdown of my opinion on the NPOV noticeboard. I was the IP user that Hemiauchenia is referring to and just registered. FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is one glaring issue with the Vice article "The Ivermectin Advocates' War Has Just Begun". It cites Roman et al.'s recent meta-analysis to "prove" that Ivermectin doesn't work.  Except that meta-analysis actually says that Ivermectin reduces deaths by 63%. If some editors feel that the Vice article is a "hit piece" designed to make the subject look bad, then it should be excluded from a BLP article. I've been complaining about this publicly and consider myself recused from the topic in article space. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * that meta-analysis actually says that Ivermectin reduces deaths by 63% &larr; a most unfortunate mis-statement. To quote from the conclusion: "In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality" [my emphasis]. Alexbrn (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If only. The pre-print at Medrxiv of Roman et al. comes to the conclusion that IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality (your emphasis) based on data that showed RR 1.11, ie 11% more deaths in ivermectin patients.  Except their data was wrong in the pre-print.  When corrected, it showed IVM had RR 0.37, ie 63% fewer deaths.  They forgot to update their conclusions.  Vice absolutely cannot rely on Roman et al. to claim that Ivermectin is ineffective and that Weinstein is spreading "misinformation".  (I must note there are other, more reliable sources that can show Bret Weinstein's "ivermectin is more effective than vaccines" claims are ludicrous).  You could also note (accurately) that the meta-analysis only looks at 5 studies for death-rate and one has the ludicrously low N=24; that's just more evidence that Vice should not be using that study for anything. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you citing a preprint? The source cited is plain in its wording, and your statement about it was just wrong. Mistakes are okay, but persistent misrepresentation of sources might start people wondering. Please don't insert your WP:PROFRINGE fancies into Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm citing the pre-print to explain how the mistake happened. Are you claiming that "reduction in deaths by 63%" is in fact no reduction at all, or are you claiming the study doesn't claim there is a reduction in deaths by 63%.  If you feel WP:PROFRINGE means that all rigor and logic is abandoned for studies which make politically correct conclusions, I will have to suggest that you are the one in error. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting (no, in fact, I'm telling you) that Wikipedia likes to reflect high-quality, scholarly, reputable, peer-reviewed sources; not the WP:PROFRINGE reckonings of random editors dumbly churning out talking points from social media. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Authors of a peer-reviewed meta-analysis forgetting to change a statement in their abstract is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence. (The revision in their Table 2 between preprint and published is to a line where the certainty of the evidence is marked "very low" and the studies in question had high risk of bias; it seems more likely that the authors of the meta-analysis corrected their numbers and found their qualitative conclusions unchanged.) I'm finding it hard to take Vice to task for pointing to a study because it is recent (This week, a meta-analysis and systematic review was published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, on the same day Weinstein’s channels were dinged) while refraining from calling it definitive (e.g., a very large clinical trial conducted by Oxford University is expected to shed much more light on ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, when concluded). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an extraordinary claim, but I need no evidence beyond what I have already provided. If the meta-analysis itself says a 60% reduction in deaths with "very low" certainly, how can they possibly conclude that it is definitely not effective at all in reducing deaths? User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The change is to one line in a table, referring to a specific subset of studies and circumstances, not to the overall result. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you're serious. When the one-line change is from a top-line "deaths increased by 10%" to "deaths decreased by 60%", it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT; in comparison it is all the other lines in the paper that don't matter. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A change from an increase to a decrease would be significant ... unless it's a figure that they say they can't trust very much either way, which seems to be the case. They say up front in the revised version that all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM (emphasis added); the change between versions is to the high risk-of-bias subgroup, and the confidence interval for all-cause mortality vs. controls includes 1. Ultimately, though, it's not our job to second-guess the meta-analysis peer review process. If the paper is revised or retracted later, then so be it. And even then, I find it hard to fault Vice for reporting on (and not drawing a definitive conclusion from) a meta-analysis before a problem with it was formally identified. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As there was also a post at BLP/N, there's two things being sourced to Vice: one is in the lede about "spreading COVID-19 misinformation" and the second in the body about he and his wife taking the "medication" on a live stream and what they said during that, and subsequently YouTube demonetizing the channel. While Vice is a lower-quality source, on the latter claims, these are not contentious information from the standpoint that both points are easily verified (watching the video and reading the tweet - though argubly the YT demonetization should be "According to Weinstein, YouTube demonetized...") and thus are fine. The claim that is misinformation however is tenacious, as well as having both potentially UNDUE and RECENTISM problems for being a focus in the lead. If anything, using Vice for this should 1) not be in the lede but can be in the body and 2) should be in-line attributed to Vice. --M asem (t) 00:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had concerns about the lead claims being undue editorialising, but that's a wording issue that has nothing to do with the reliability of Vice. I should note that there is no need to attribute the demonetisation to Weinstein, as a YouTube spokesman confirmed the demonetization to Vice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, to a degree, yes, Vice's lower-quality reliability means we should be careful with claims they make verses more factual statements, in contrast to a work like the New York Times. And claims only made by one or two lower-quality sources shouldn't get highlighted in the lede of any article. --M asem (t) 04:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the VERY short length of the lead I have to say this really looks problematic in the lead. I also have a lot of issues with Politifact as I have a list of perhaps 5 or 6 cases where their assessments are questionable. For example, the presented facts seem reasonable but they either don't support the conclusion or they could reasonably support an alternative conclusion vs the one PF used. I strongly agree with Masem's comment here [] that the problem here is the lead is applying a scarlet letter in Wiki-voice without actually providing a full telling of Weinstien's position/arguments etc. Springee (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I just got around to finishing the JRE podcast in question with Kory and Weinstein that inspired my original comments on the weinstein talk page (It aired on June 22nd, 2021). It is pretty obvious they are not being deceptive nor spreading misinformation, and go out of their way to be very clear regarding the controversial nature of both claims and the very obvious lack of clear factual evidence and go on to confirm that they are looking for answers and not peddling them and their primary interest is saving lives. If you have spotify the exchange begins at 132:51 and lasts several minutes. The Vice article is definitely being unfair in their representation of Weinstein, Kory, and their claims in general. I added specific information to [|point 4 in the NPOV noticeboard] section regarding the specifics. It should call the credibility of VICE into question, as well as be a reliable source that this exchange occurred itself and as of yet has not been censored or removed by Spotify. FrederickZoltair (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Err what? From the sources we know that Weinstein has said the vaccine is "dangerously" cytotoxic, that he and his family aren't getting vaccinated but instead taking ivermectin - and indeed he took it live "on air" in a piece framing Big Pharma's cover-up of this supposed wonder drug as the "crime of the century". So it's a plain mix of antivaxx, quackery and conspiracism. For his pains he got removed from Youtube (unsurprisingly). Not surprisingly this has been picked up by some sources. The only "fair" representation of this stuff is to contextualize it with what we know from reliable, respectable sources: the vaccines work, and are not dangerous; ivermectin has no benefit for preventing or treating COVID-19 and is not a vaccine alternative. Saying otherwise is misinformation. It's is not Wikipedia's job to indulge nonsense, but to call it what it is in line with relevant sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry let me clarify: Even if you do not want to entertain weinstein's/Dr. Kory's ideas and recent claims personally about their motivations or perspectives you should at minimum listen to the the JRE podcast timestamp I linked because the context offered about the recent controversy being covered is extremely important to the overall landscape and in addition is a core guiding principle behind NPOV. Secondly, JRE/Bari Weiss/Ben Shapiro are very large and popular sources of news and media not known for quackery or deceptive practices (Some people may disagree, I do not follow any of them) and per BALANCE, should have their views accounted for in relation to this controversy (They both have BOLP entries already that do not associate them with quackiness or misinformation). Even if you do not want to include them, the fact that all of the mentioned personalities in the VICE article are unanimously saying weinstein and co claimed X not Y and are indeed being censored means that opinion should be represented in some capacity if the lede is to stay as is. Individually any one of them alone tip the balance out of being an outlier opinion and altogether comprise a loud chorus with a significant following. Weinstein himself, and all of his recent guests (like Dr Malone, Dr Kory etc) are saying "we claimed X, not Y, and would never claim Y because it would be irresponsible to do so and furthermore we made a distinction between the data we have and the data we need". What reason do you have for failing to entertain the possibility of those statements being true or being made in good faith as neither is previously notable for quackery and their credentials are valid and not in question in addition to Kory being a practicing MD? To proceed with the entry as is, requires an investment into a particular narrative. Wikipedia cannot change reality, but alleging that VICE and other heavily biased media sources (left or right) that coincidentally support a specific narrative that somehow supersedes the claims of the subject directly, should be the only representative of reality in a BOLP is the problem in my opinion and ignores very vital context and in addition also ignores that this is a currently developing situation. At minimum it calls for removal until this information is certified factually incorrect which given the disagreement between both sides about what was claimed I think is fair. Per WP:GEVAL, academia relies on peer reviewed research and clinical trials to establish scientific consensus (Not individuals like Dr Goreski or twitter posts by doctors, or their blogs etc) which as of this moment have not been completed yet. Note I am not calling for removal of the covid section, just the troubling statement in the lead. As a side note, using what Youtube administration does as evidence for or against something is a bit silly. Youtube is currently embroiled in a controversy for suppressing information regarding the Uyghur genocide in China reported by international human rights activists and the UN. You can read that Reuters article here. FrederickZoltair (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't listened to the podcast in question but if Vice is misrepresenting what was said (removing qualifying/limiting statements, making a passing comments into pillars of a claim etc) then we can say *this* Vice article is not a RS. Having heard Weinstein talk about this general subject in other context I think he has been very careful to say what is and is not known.  I think some of the claims in the PF article would be inconsistent with statements I have heard in other Weinstein discussions. This is a case where an ABOUTSELF quote may be needed given the nature of the claims against him and their so-so sources.  Again, for this to be in the lead is very problematic in my book. Springee (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem we have here is WP:RECENTISM. When events are unfolding, we run the risk of making more of the event than it merits. Will it matter in a year or two? At this point we don’t know.  Thus, one solution is to not mention the event at all… at least until we have a clearer picture as to how it plays out. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The articles are correct and show their working. Vice aren't liars, as far as I know (despite their questionable founder, who they kicked out). I see no reason why these aren't completely usable sources on Weinstein's behaviour, even if as general press they may not be MEDRSes - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of this reason I believe this noticeboard claim is valid is because VICE does appear to be intentionally misconstruing the claims in favor of sensationalizing them (or at least selectively including certain information they prefer, and leaving out information they disagree with In my opinion) and I made a case for this above and on the weinstein talk page. For example to restate a little: The JRE podcast the VICE article cites specifically includes detailed clarification of claims by both weinstein and kory regarding the backlash, yet any attributed quotes directly dealing with those clarifications or distinctions made between their claims and what the mainstream media is reporting on, or even their own calls for more evidence and caution are entirely absent from either VICE article, why? At best Vice's claims are in called into question and should not be used per WP:Recentism and WP:Balance. Its a bit silly to me that the claims made directly by either of the three subjects on the podcast in question are being superseded in favor of second hand sources like VICE which is behaving like a hit piece and not a reliable source of events. FrederickZoltair (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The Vice article pushes the association between Weinstein defense of the rights to ask questions about Ivermectin being effective, and " old claims about an effective cure being suppressed by secretive and sinister forces are rising again". This is a straw man argument, because the fact that the old claims (not made by Weinstein) were debunked have no power on corroborating Weinstein 2021 specific Ivermectin claim.  A second argument that is evidence of poor journalism, is to push the link of Weinstein to the Intellectual Dark Wave Web to stain his reputation by association, basically a weak version of an ad-hominem.      Finally, Vice saying "[Ivermectin] is at best a mediocre treatment for COVID-19" is not a strong push back against the fact that "[Weinstein is] asking why is not allowed to ask questions about Ivermectin". It is big stretch to go from that premise to the conclusion that "Without, perhaps, even realizing it, they’ve acted as foot soldiers for something entirely commonplace: a politicized and pseudoscientific response to a deadly disease."  So, to sum my position up, this Vice piece was good at: citing correctly the medical consensus on Ivermectin, including Weinstein and his wife responses to their questions, correctly being skeptical of Hydroxichloroquine, and their ability to pick up political nuances that transpires in Weinstein defense of Ivermectin.  They got wrong the main issue: straw man and guilt-by-association arguments are weak attacks on Weinstein's claims, IMHO,  and also there seems to be a big stretch in how they arrive to their conclusions from someone promoting public debate on an at best mediocre treatment. Overall: I'd recommend to avoid using Vice in the article.  Forich (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A most peculiar response. Weinstein is quite happy to be identified as a member of the "intellectual dark web". There's no good evidence that ivermectin has any utility for COVID-19 according to multiple top-level WP:MEDRS, and some concern it can cause harm. I'm not sure how you can view a claim that ivermectin is "a drug that’s good enough to end the pandemic at any point you wanted" as anything other than rank quackery, compounded by the claim its true worth is being suppressed by "business interests", which is pure conspiracy theory. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I trust you on "There's no good evidence that ivermectin has any utility for COVID-19 according to multiple top-level WP:MEDRS, and some concern it can cause harm", I've not dived into the literature but I know you are super sharp at scientific reviews. If Weinstein is advocating a questionable treatment I support we mention it and include the proper adjectives to denounce him. Just don't rely too much on this Vice piece, I'll try to give it a second look to see what can be rescued.  Forich (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alex/Forich are either of you able to find another source besides Vice for the "You have a drug that’s good enough to end the pandemic at any point you wanted,” claim, or a reference timestamp anywhere? It struck me as a bit off so I put it into Google with quotes and this vice article is the only source that shows up for that quote. I also recently listened to the podcast in question, and I do not recall the line as quoted in the context being implied (I will need to listen again). Also Happy 4th if you are in the USA. FrederickZoltair (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're handwaving frantically, but it doesn't distract from the fact that the Vice article's claims are true and well researched public interest journalism: Weinstein is loudly and blatantly advocating dangerous quackery and conspiracy theory. Attempting to shoot the messenger doesn't make that go away - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Forich's assessment aligns with what I have seen in discussions with Weinstein. Does Vice provide quotes or links to the original statements?  If not I think an this is a strong case for ABOUTSELF and include actual quotes (perhaps in a footnote to avoid a long in text quote).  The content should be removed from the lead.  Springee (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Vice provides quotes (from an "emergency podcast" with Rogan, Weinstein and Kory apparently available on Spotify). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which quotes are you referring to? If its the "you have a drug that is good enough to end the pandemic", I am having difficult verifying it other than via VICE. FrederickZoltair (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is my concern. Vice may provide a quote but if they don't provide a source or if editors here either cannot find the source quote or can point to sourced quotes that suggest critical context was removed from the sourced quotes then this is a problem with Vice as a source.  Having listened to Weinstein he seems very careful to state what is known, what is unknown and what would need to be proven.  Saying "X appears to be a good cure for Covid... we need more data to prove it/why aren't we running studies" is not the same as saying "X is a good cure, start using it off label".  Many of the replies to that I've seen regarding ivermectin are of the form, not proven effective.  That isn't the same as "proven not effective (to the extent that we can prove a negative)".  Someone saying "preliminary data on ivermectin looks very promising, why aren't we doing more trials?" is not the same as someone saying, "it's proven safe, take it to cure COVID".  Years back the anti-vaxers scored PR hits when they were arguing with scientists.  They would ask if the scientist can prove the vaccine is safe.  The scientist would say, "no" because they knew it was impossible to prove a negative.  The anti-vaxer could then point and say, "see this person isn't willing to say this is safe".  I'm concerned Vice may be doing something similar here based on what I've found on Youtube clips with Weinstein.  He seems very careful about putting things in scientific context.  If a listener or Vice takes them out of context and says "well what he really meant is this" (a dog whistle to those who are suspicious of the vaccine) then that is on Vice, not Weinstein.  It would make Vice the specific Vice article unreliable.  This is why the source is very important in this case.  Springee (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Please remember the context here… we are discussing this in the context of a biographical article about Bret Weinstein… NOT a medical article on Ivermectin or Covid.
 * So… we have to ask: how significant is any of this to the life of Bret Weinstein? Are his views on Ivermectin a significant part of his story, or are they a relative minor chapter in his life? THAT isn’t a reliability issue, but a matter of DUE/UNDUE WEIGHT.
 * If his views on the drug are not that significant, should we mention them at all? And if his views are significant enough to mention, how can we best summarize them (and what are the best sources to support that summary)? Can we simply say that he holds controversial views - without going into details?
 * I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I do think we might be “missing the forest for the trees” here. I urge everyone to take a step back, and at least think about CONTEXT and how that impacts both what information we should present, and how we should present

it. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * you appear to be asking for a phrasing to whitewash this. Again, there is no reason to do so - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m just concerned that we are “making a mountain out of a mole hill” by giving this more coverage than it actually deserves. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueboard is making an excellent point that relies on policy that supersedes the whitewashing argument in my opinion. Using the Evergreen controversy as an example: It is notable to weinstein's BLOP because it involved him and his actions directly (he was the catalyst that ignited the controversy), and it led to a hyperactive news cycle, litigation which was settled in his favor, and had far reaching effects on the school years after he left as noted at Evergreen_State_College. That is a hugely notable event that if not acknowledged to be a core part of Weinstein's life and Evergreen's history is a disservice to both entries and history in general. The same is not true for the current Ivermectin debate and the only variable they share is being partially covered by a hyperactive and still evolving news cycle. The Ivermectin controversy lives on if weinstein and his wife up and disappear right this moment. The issue has been championed primarily by Kory and the FLCCC, and he is responsible for testifying in the senate hearing. As I understand it, weinstein only joined in support recently. FrederickZoltair (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueboar's suggestion to say "there is a controversy" but not what it is, is ridiculous. And your entire argument here has been an attempt to shoot the messenger on a newsworthy story. I note also your bizarre misunderstandings of Wikipedia sourcing elsewhere on this page also - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF, and keep in mind I am very new to Wikipedia and learning. If you feel I am misusing policy then please point out where so I can learn and be better rather than dismissing me. Additionally, can you clarify your meaning regarding "shooting the messenger" as your statement does not make sense to me. Finally as I see it, your contributions to this discussion thus far have been in the form of authoritative and pointed one-liners without significant supporting arguments other than imply that you are correct as evidenced above where you failed to respond to both Forich and Springee. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueboar is saying maybe we wait a bit (per RECENTISM) to see if there's more than just pretty much one single RS (the Vice source) to discuss events related to a BLP that happened within the last few weeks that certainly is contentious and not necessarily clear if it would impact Weinstein's career. If in a few more weeks no other sources ever appear, then we shouldn't include it. If more RS coverage does appear then including it makes sense but still needs to be with some type of UNDUE consideration. What we have here is back to the "scarlet letter" problem that pervades WP - a person already seen in the negative light by the media does something "wrong" that can be documented, and WP editors rush to include it without considering the RECENTISM and WEIGHT problems. That's absolutely not our purpose. Even if the single source was the NYTimes, we'd still wait to see if that got additional coverage or if it had a clear impact on the person (eg like being fired from their job) before adding. --M asem (t) 04:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several sources. As I understand it, Weinstein's principal "job" was as a pundit on Youtube, and Youtube did shut down/demonetize his channel after his ivermectin stunt. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The key problem is that, if you don't want the Weinstein article to contain the bit about him loudly and publicly advocating a dangerous conspiracy theory, the first thing you need is for Weinstein not to loudly and publicly advocate a dangerous conspiracy theory. You act like he's ashamed of it, and he's absolutely not, it's a thing he does now. I concur that it's extremely embarrassing and bad for Weinstein's image, but Weinstein sure doesn't seem to think so - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Massem sums up my argument well. I don’t care about Weinstein’s image or how embarrassing his statement was. Image and embarrassment are not factors in determining whether a bio article should cover an incident involving the subject. What IS a factor in that determination is the amount and degree of coverage the incident receives.  If lots of sources cover the incident, then of course we should cover it in his bio. However, if only a few sources cover the incident, and most ignore it, then I think there is a good argument to be made that we should ignore it as well. If they don’t think it is important, why should we?So… let me ask: what sources other than Vice have discussed this particular incident? Is it a mole hill or a mountain? Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the person shows zero apologetic behavior for promoting pseudoscience or anything like that and stands by their beliefs when things happen to them, it is still our job as editors to keep Wikivoice neutral, impartial, and dispassionate, and particularly on a BLP, that means waiting for multiple quality sources to identify a criticism rather than trying to cherry pick something. Now, Alexbrn is correct that the demonetization aspect given that his primary "career" appears to be a YouTube pundit is an issue, and it is certainly possible (as I've said either here or other threads that were opened about Weinstein) that the Vice article is sufficient to say that after he posted these live streams that YT demonetized him. That's non-contestable facts that Vice is not opinionating about. That said, YouTubers are always getting their channels demonetized on YT for various reasons, so this could still be a mountain-out-of-molehill aspect as well given little followup about it from any party involved. Hence RECENTISM to see if there's more to this. --M asem (t) 14:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 5 minutes' Googling turned up discussion of Weinstein's ivermectin advocacy outside his expertise on ABC Radio National (open transcript, and they quote Weinstein literally saying the words - and that's the national broadcaster, on the local equivalent of Radio 4, in a ridiculously libel-friendly country), and his YouTube near-suspension on this matter decried by Bill Maher in Yahoo News and The Hill. This is international news - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some sources were also posted at Talk:Bret Weinstein.          Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet Megyn Kelly interviewed weinstein less than 24hrs ago and essentially certified the rebuttal to that representation of weinstein in the public media. For example, mentioned here in yahoo news ""One of the joys of the show is, you don't have to rush through the conversations. Today we dropped an episode with Brett Weinstein. He's very popular on the web," Kelly details. "This Evergreen State professor out of Washington State who was forced out of his job. It's a very progressive campus. So, yes, I wanted to talk about getting fired from the University, and he's been banned from YouTube for his vaccine talks. I really went hard on him." Its not so clear and unequivocal that he is a quack ivermectin proponent. Interestingly, Megyn Kelly specifically mentions how the VICE claims directly misrepresent the narrative in this same interview. You can listen to it on Spotify for free. FrederickZoltair (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind several of those sources listed only mention Weinstein in passing and are not directly related to the events of the last week of June tied to the video about taking ivermectin that led to YT demonetizing him. (a couple are). Eg: the Hill and Yahoo articles linked by David Gerald aren't helpful over the Vice one since they just iterate this point and don't speak any further on it. One thing to stress: as Weinstein article already has it, per MEDRS, it definitely must be stated that ivermectin is not yet proven as a COVID remedy, after stating that Weinstein has promoted it. So we can still talk to all this back and forth but still fundamentally stick to the requirement set by MEDRS to make sure it is clear that Wikipedia in no way claims Weinstein is right. --M asem (t) 16:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems like a handy overview of the fuss. Alexbrn (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece... I think we have better sources above. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Debt trap diplomacy and misleading media

 * In 2017, there was this very common narrative enthusiastically promoted by past media. That the Sri Lanka port lease was an example of (Debt trap Diplomacy) by china. On the next 3 years, there was no shortage of mainstream media pedalling those false allegations as if they were real facts. That is now firmly disproven as a MYTH by many professional sources lately.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/

https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/the-hambantota-port-deal-myths-and-realities/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy

https://afp.princeton.edu/2019/01/bumpsalongthenewsilkroad/

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=59720

The issue is on the current wiki page now. There are editors baselessly and angrily claiming that my sources are misrepresentation of the topic. And shouldn't be trusted. That is ludicrous. I ask the community to please check and judge the sources above and confirm if they are reliable or not. Because I have lately been getting accusations that such sources are wrong and deceptive. And i don't agree with them. Nvtuil (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You might be better taking this to WP:NPOVN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Kurdistan24
There is an editor who claims that Kurdistan24 is a biased source. No arguing for what it is biased. I checked the archives of WP:RSN but didn't find any decision on Kurdistan24. I wanted to see if anyone is interested to look into this. What is sourced is actually quite easy to corroborate. The source in question is this one where an SDF spokesperson is accusing Turkey of Ethnic cleansing.Reuters makes a similar report as Kurdistan24.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am the editor mentioned above. To be clear, I am saying that kurdistan24.net cannot be considered to be neutral with respect to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict because it is biased towards the Kurds. Tradedia talk 05:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * By itself, it does not disqualify the source (see WP:BIASED). Are there reasons to put its reliability in doubt? Alaexis¿question? 06:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me give some more background. I am concerned about undue weight made for Kurdish accusations of human rights violations by Turkey in Syria. So it is not about whether the accusations were made, but rather about how much space we should give them without having an undue weight situation. In the case above, I have written the accusations in the Wikipedia article. I am in the process of reverting a blocked sockpuppet who has tainted many articles by writing as if the accusations were facts and giving undue weight... Tradedia talk 07:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've looked at this diff - I don't know if it's representative - but I don't think the removal is justified. The allegations sourced to Kurdistan24 are not made in Wikivoice and are attributed to some SDF official and it's just one sentence so I don't think there is an issue of undue weight. Alaexis¿question? 07:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The undue weight is about the article in general, not just this sentence. There is like one sentence about the kurds human rights violations and then tons and tons of details about Turkish violations and alleged violations. This is not balanced. We need to restore some balance. Tradedia talk 08:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, I think the proper way to make the article balanced is to add information about the violations perpetrated by the Kurdish forces. You might get to the situation when the section becomes too long necessitating trimming down or splitting, but I don't think this is now an issue in case of this article. Alaexis¿question? 09:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I see that you removed information sourced to The Independent which is widely considered a reliable source. Alaexis¿question? 07:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345. However, notice that most editors voted «Generally Reliable» and one editor rightfully said "... It Depends… context matters. Generally, it is reliable, but that does not mean it is universally reliable ... " The Independent is owned by Russian oligarch and former KGB Officer Alexander Lebedev. This makes it not neutral with respect to the Syria war. And what is presented in its article is a random video that shows a few angry fighters making threats to their enemies in the heat of battle. The video is not evidence of human rights violations. Including this in an article about a city just increases the already large undue weight. Tradedia talk 08:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Context always matters and there are no absolutely reliable sources. However your reasoning that since The Independent is owned by Alexander Lebedev it cannot be considered reliable for anything related to the Syrian War is not based on any Wikipedia policy. Has its reporting been found inaccurate? Has it been criticised by other reliable sources? Alaexis¿question? 09:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good question. Thank you. I've just seen that Tradedia re-added the Kurdistan24 phrase with a Reuters source. Let's see what the answer to this question will be.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it has been criticised by other reliable sources, however, its Wikipedia article says "It has been seen as leaning to the left wing of the political spectrum..." When following the Syrian civil war, i noticed that The Independent had often articles that went with the Russian narrative of the war. That what was happening was not a revolution but rather a conspiracy to hit the resistance axis against Israel and that the rebels are just Western backed islamist terrorists etc... After experiencing this for many years i looked up the ownership of the newspaper and discovered it was owned by Russian oligarch and former KGB Officer Alexander Lebedev. Tradedia talk 07:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The question is whether all of this influences their reporting, which is why I asked whether their reporting from Syria has been found unreliable? Have they got their facts wrong? Please note the distinction between opinion pieces such as Robert Fisk's columns and reporting. The UK is ranked high in all freedom of press rankings so we can assume that the newspapers enjoy editorial independence, unless proven otherwise. Alaexis¿question? 08:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It’s not really about getting their facts wrong. It’s more about what they choose to highlight. It is also about exaggeration. Many of the referenced articles of The Independent relating to the Syria war on Wikipedia are by Robert Fisk which you mention. Many other articles are by his friend Patrick Cockburn. These two have strong opinions and inject their bias in the way they spin the news and give undue weight to some issues. It seems that many reporters in The Independent follow their lead.


 * As an example, I am dealing with this source in the context of reverting a blocked sockpuppet. It is an article by Patrick Cockburn. The title is “Syria's war of ethnic cleansing: Kurds threatened with beheading by Turkey's allies if they don't convert to extremism” The article is based on a random video that shows a few angry fighters making threats to their enemies in the heat of battle. Does this really justify the title of the article? Is it evidence of anything? Now POV pushers on Wikipedia will use it and describe what is being said in details as a way to imply that human rights violations did happen and to drown a city article with tons of undue weight about a specific topic. Usually, the major reliable sources will wait for a lot more evidence before writing an article about supposed “ethnic cleansing” rather than just do it based on some youtube type video of random fighters…


 * So the problem is not just The Independent but also the way POV pushers on Wikipedia use it to pile up details and drown articles with undue weight… This is an encyclopedia. We need to have balance. Some editors think that because a source is reliable, they are entitled to stick it in any article they want in lengthy detail to push their POV and pile up undue weight. Yeah a source might be reliable but that doesn’t mean we have to include it because it is just not right to have an article on the city of Afrin with half of its content on supposed Turkish human rights violations. Especially when there has been also Kurdish human rights violations but are only put in as one sentence! There needs to be balance and reduction of undue weight… Tradedia talk 13:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The proper way to determine the due weight would be to look at sources that describe the human rights situation (books, reports by human rights organisations etc) over the years, ideally not affiliated with the sides of the conflict. Otherwise it's just your opinion vs another editor's opinion. Alaexis¿question? 14:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your mediation and time Alaexis. I hoped for a clarification on Kurdistan24 but now also got an answer for The Independent and other outlets in question and on that even some advice how to edit. Now I guess the issue is settled as Editorial conflicts are not a question for WP:RSN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: the Independent: It is a generally reliable source on Syria, regardless of its proprietor, as there is no evidence of editorial intervention on this topic. It is true that Fisk and Cockburn are generally quite partisan on Syria, and have both been widely criticised for inaccurate reportage on Syria, and so I strongly prefer to avoid them or use with attribution, but I think most Wikipedia editors would see them as relatively reliable. It is worth checking with their pieces if they are published in the Middle East news section, in which case they have gone through the editorial control of the Middle East news section and would be more reliable, or in the Voices section, which has a lower fact-checking standard and so contributions there would count as opinion, and be used only with attribution and if due. Also worth noting that Wikipedia does not consider headlines reliable: if a factual claim is based on a headline but cannot be verified in the article itself it shouldn't be used. Re Syrian Observatory: We should not use this without attribution as it is not fully reliable, and where possible should be triangulated against other sources, and I think we have a tendency to overuse it because it is often the sole English-language source on less noteworthy Syria incidents. Also, I don't think the issue is that it is partisan (it used to be considered pro-FSA but that's less the case now) so much as that its methodology and sources are opaque and patchy, and it frequently passes on Assad regime and ISIS press releases etc as factual without being able to verify them. But most Syria editors consider it reliable enough if used with care and attribution. Re Kurdistan24: I see it as a borderline and partisan reliable source that should also be used with care and attribution and where possible triangulated with other sources. I think it is genereally slightly more reliable on Turkey vs SDF issues (e.g. in the Afrin article) than it is on internal KRG politics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Re: Independent agree on that. But I am of the editors who prefer to use Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn with attribution as they prominent enough authors for a Wikipedia article. I usually prefer to Wikilink them in the sources and not in the article itself. Re: Syrian Observatory agree on that, too. I usually don't add them, but if someone removes them together with the sourced content on human rights violations, I prefer to keep them and wait for better sources to appear, specially if I know there exist several sources on the human rights violations. And actually they also removed several other sources like VOA, Independent, OpenDemocracy, Al Monitor etc. Re: Kurdistan24: I sometimes add them, but on usually non-controversial issues like economy, infrastructure or schools. As a secondary source, I use them more frequently. Then the phrase removed was sourced with Kurdistan24 and also about human rights violations, which then resulted to be also reported by Reuters. As to me, if a phrase is disputed it is better to add a tag, remove the source and add a  tag or even better look for the source yourself. And then also go to the talk page and explain the edit, which Tradedia did, but it explained the edit in a way, it caused me to come to the RSN.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Tamil Centre for Human Rights
In edit 1026680246, the source Tamil Centre for Human Rights was provided by IP Address 84.209.141.236 as WP:RS in the Article Sri Lankan Civil War, to support the original edit 1006099297.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Tamil Centre for Human Rights


 * Option 1. The source is generally reliable.
 * Option 2. Additional considerations apply when citing the source - specify which.
 * Option 3. The source is generally unreliable, but may be used in exceptional cases.
 * Option 4. The source is not reliable and editors should not cite it.

Thanks for your time. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. You may want to use Template:RfC so that people could see that you have posted an RfC. Other than that, I have nothing to say on the topic. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is an advocacy group but taken that into consideration, it's usable although for things such as casualty figures attribution is necessary. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 05:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow - the most desirable sources would be ones written by neutral third parties, e.g., some international organisations or whatever..with that said, if that cannot be done and all of the data must needs come from parties to the conflict, you cannot only include only sources from one side. Since what appears to be the vast bulk of references are directly from the Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka, the Tamil sources cannot be excluded simply because they lost the war (and therefore conflicts with the so-called "official" data, which is accorded its official status solely for the grace of having been the victor in a military conflict). if there are comflicting data, just give both versions, with attributions. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd suggest removing the RfC format here. I don't think we'll list this source at WP:RSP just based on some edits to a single article. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing about the formatting on the website inspires confidence in me, and seeing the last modified date on some of the pages it's not an older website that just withered away. I'm not comfortable saying it's WP:GREL owing to its seeming lack of maintenance. There's a list of press releases on the website that indicate that this is an advocacy group, and some of the material regarding living people seems to be extreme. It's not clear to me that it has a history of fact-checking or accuracy, but also I really can't find much about this group from reliable sources (google news search returns very few results for their name), and the UN seems to not have looked favorably upon the group's objectivity or neutrality. None of this points towards reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , on a closer look, you seem to be pretty correct. I had the impression that it was related to the May 17 Movement and didn't check further, apparently it is not. It is an affiliate of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which makes it a primary source. There's a Frontline article which mentions this. The website's likely not maintained because LTTE is pretty much dead. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't use Avowedly partisan, and the name itself suggests something fishy, would be right up there with "Communist center for anti-gulags" or "Hamas center for the prevention of rocket attacks on civilians". Additionally, no one has brought to the table any evidence that they have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Keeping content sourced to propaganda outlets for authoritarian regimes
I'm again having issues with editing on pages related to the authoritarian regimes in the United Arab Emirates. I've been trying to remove extraordinary levels of puffery on pages related to various organizations created by the authoritarian rulers of the UAE. The content in question is usually always sourced to UAE's state-run propaganda outlets (e.g. The National (Abu Dhabi), Khaleej Times), organizations that are based in an authoritarian country where dissent is prohibited, or to the organizations themselves. But attempts to fix these pages have been indiscriminately reverted by the User:Alexandermcnabb who argues that all the puffery (which he himself in many cases added to those pages) should be kept and tagged in articles (rather than removed).


 * 1) Surely, puffery sourced to non-independent sources should be removed on sight?
 * 2) The correct process is not to keep poorly sourced content and then hunt for actual RS that substantiate the content (what if there isn't any?), but to remove poorly sourced content and then add it back if RS actually substantiate the content? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends, if it is (say) an official claim, as long as it is attributed I see no issue. If (however) it is stated as fact, no that wouldn't be OK.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The requirement that information that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed applies only to BLPs. Usually it should be left unless there is a question of its accuracy. Puffery is an issue of neutral tone. You just remove it while retaining the facts. For example, change "our beloved president whose wisdom exceeds all other leaders on earth" to "the president of the United Arab Emirates." TFD (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * These aren't independent sources so they do not demonstrate that the information is DUE to include in the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

As TFD points out above, there is no reason to remove or blank uncontroversial or non-BLP material which is precisely what the recent edits by Snooganssnoogans have been doing - often indiscriminately. The amount of sheer damage caused by this one editor to pages related to the United Arab Emirates is remarkable in of itself - every single edit has been negative, not in tone but in impact - the removal of, often sourced, material. The very good point, "Puffery is an issue of neutral tone. You just remove it while retaining the facts" made above is precisely where the problem lies here - not one of these recent edits has contributed material or corrected tone, they're just deletions, often poorly judged and based on almost complete ignorance of the country itself. For instance, blanking International Humanitarian City and turning it into a redirect reflects a complete lack of local knowledge or desire to gain any - a very brief WP:BEFORE would show that IHC is the world's largest humanitarian hub. That's not an issue of reliable sourcing, it's careless and destructive editing. While undoubtedly an editor of standing and long duration, Snooganssnoogans seems to have a very large blind spot when it comes to the UAE and its 'authoritarian regime'. Having failed to get the UAE's national media outlets deprecated as non-RS and therefore get a carte blanche to prop up destructive edits on UAE articles, they have nevertheless embarked on a remarkable series of deletions and removals that have consistently assumed bad faith on the part of the Emirates, its media, its organisations and its prominent people. 'Remove extraordinary levels of puffery' is frequently the only edit summary left on a series of deletions to UAE pages - an area already woefully under-served on Wikipedia. This is not actually an RS noticeboard issue, it's probably more suited to WP:ANI. The political viewpoints of an editor ("organizations that are based in an authoritarian country where dissent is prohibited"; and - on several edit summaries - "the dictator of Dubai") should surely not be allowed to eclipse all other considerations when handling content related to an entire nation - but that's clearly what Snoogans is doing. Set aside the issue of dissent, we are looking at basic facts here, not assertions of the wondrousness of leadership. The filter of bias being so applied, these destructive edits dismiss local sources as "UAE's state-run propaganda outlets (e.g. The National (Abu Dhabi), Khaleej Times)" - the UAE's national media. So if you can't source UAE content to any UAE-based mainstream media, where are you left? It's clearly a ridiculous position and the end result, the widespread removal of large amounts of content, is tantamount to vandalism. If there is, indeed, a puffery issue in UAE articles in general, you're throwing out an awful lot of babies with that there lavender-scented bathwater. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If you can't source content to non-RS, then to go-to is obviously to source it to actual RS. We don't stenograph press releases by authoritarian rulers about how they run the "world's largest humanitarian hub" (a claim which no reliable source substantiates but which is made in every press release by the dictator's organizations). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In general, I think that removing information sourced to these outlets might be too extreme, I would place tag to give other editors an opportunity to find better sources. Also, WP:EXCEPTIONAL would apply here. For simple statements these sources might be okay, while for a statement like "IHC is the world's largest humanitarian hub" a more reliable source would be needed. Alaexis¿question? 07:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ON the question of removal, yes poorly or unsourced content can (and to my mind should) be removed. It damages Wikipedia if it is not accurate. But that is not an RS question.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV and WP:TONE are a matter of balance and focus, not just accuracy; even if the things stated in the sources are uncontroversial, they can still be promotional in nature (eg. a biography of an executive notable for being jailed for embezzlement and insider trading shouldn't be heavily focused on his charitable donations and all the kittens he saved, even if those things are uncontroversially true.) WP:BIASED sources in particular need to be used cautiously so as to avoid having large portions of the article cited to sources with one particular bias. --Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that non-controversial and non-BLP material that is sourced from weak sources should be flagged with the better source tag for a while rather than removed on sight, and that factually accurate but promotional material can be flagged for cleanup, e.g. using the promotional tone or advert inline tags and edited to make NPOV, rather than removed on sight. I don't think The National and the Khaleej Times are generally unreliable; I think they're partisan and should only be used with attribution for controversial topics where the UAE rulers are implicated. Their reputation is less for inaccuracy and more for self-censorship of critical content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is something to be said that if there's a controversial policy in place in those countries, to which the state-favored media report as non-controversial and the reasons why, while sources outside of countries speak to the problems with it, that using the state-media sources to briefly state the "pro" reasoning of that policy but going into the criticism of it from other independent sources. Eg "In 2021 the UAE banned X.(ref) According to  the ban will improve the wealth and well-being for all of its citizens.(ref) Several world leaders expressed criticism of the UAE's ban. (list here)." Of course, it might be possible to give the gov't reasons for this hypothetical ban from independent RSes too, which should be preferred, but that may not always be available. --M asem (t) 15:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we can’t get the government’s opinion from independent RS then wouldn’t using unreliable sources to present the “other side" be a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * False balance would be trying to expand out to the same "amount" of discussion (in terms of prose length) on both sides of the purported debate using the state-backed/connected sources. We should be at minimally documenting a controversial move (the base of the debate), and stating very tersely why the gov't claimed it implemented this ban, which may be at most a whole sentence or so in this example; we'd then likely be following it up with a paragraph or multiple para to explain the criticism following UNDUE. Ideally, if we are keeping it to that level, we should be able to put the gov't obstinent reason from a good RS rather than having to turn to the state-based ones, but sometimes that doesn't happen. --M asem (t) 17:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why must we always include the government’s stated reason? Thats not always necessary when writing encyclopedically. I would suggest that if such a detail has been omitted by good RS then we should also omit it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It really depends, and I don't know of a situation to use as a specific example. But as a reader: if we have page that says "Gov't instituted a ban on X" and there's no reasoning given at all on the page for it from any sources, while we have a in-depth analysis and criticism of that ban from sources external to the country, I would be damn curious why the gov't thought the ban was required. I would expect that reasoning to come from the RS coverage when that coverage is objective. (Eg this is what we can rely on in the coverage of the CCP's arguments on the Uyghur genocide from our RSes that are reviewing the policy, so we don't have to touch state media). But in complete absence of that, a simple one sentence explanation provided to state-friendly sources atop everything else would be sufficient. But again, I don't know if this case has every actually happened on WP (in which the RSes covering it have failed to at least mention the purported reasoning), so this is more cautionary and the type of IAR exception that I'd call for if such a situation arose. --M asem  (t) 00:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point and I understand the desire to satisfy the readers curiosity but I think there are cases in which the government’s view as expressed through their own media could be viewed as fringe or minority. Hypothetically I can see it going both ways and I think it would largely depend on context. What I have seen IRL is Alexandermcnabb’s UAE related edits... Snooganssnoogans has identified a real problem here but perhaps this was the wrong noticeboard as the underlying issue is one of user conduct not reliability. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

LetsOTT
Can this be considered RS? I say so, because this of the third-party coverage. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  03:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , the first five results are all their own advertisements and not third party coverage. Looking at their top stories, I don't think they mark their sponsored content properly so at most it could be used as a sort of primary source assuming it doesn't actually get facts wrong. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean four results, excluding this? I thought it looks like a promising site which only needs more time to grow. The source says the website was founded on 13 May 2019, not including the Twitter account which came months before. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , including that one. It's likely an undisclosed advertisement, certainly reads like one and is coming from IBTimes which doesn't have a good reputation in this regard. The site itself may becoming more reliable in the future but looking at their content currently, it's not there yet. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 05:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thoughts? Kailash29792 (talk)  05:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , the site has a good shot but two years is early to judge. Their top story is clearly sponsored-content but they don't seem to mark it as such. About Us page is not working, that's a concern for an online-only source. Ab207 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

War History Online
Can a War History Online article be considered a reliable source? I have checked Reliable sources/Perennial sources and did not find anything about this site. I'm leaning towards concluding that the source is not reliable, but thought to check here since the article is currently a GAN. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this is in reference to article The Battle Of The Canoes – Fighting For Survival On The Waters Of The Alabama River.
 * The author of this article is Andrew Knighton, self-described as "an author of speculative and historical fiction, including comics, short stories, and novels".
 * The source is used in Canoe Fight (Creek War) to support the claim that "After the Fort Mims massacre militias were formed in present-day southern Alabama to protect settlers while they were gathering the fall harvest. Red Stick warriors continued to attack settlers in the area."
 * Well the first question is Who? He can say what he likes, what do RS think of him?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What he says about himself seems (at least to me) to support the conclusion of lack of reliability. Reviews and  don't seem to support any different conclusion., I tried few quick internet searches and did not come up with anything which appears as non-fiction.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I mean anything which appears as non-fiction published in a peer reviewed journal, book etc.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The article is by a professional writer with no qualifications as an expert. Writers such as Knighton read reliable sources and summarize the information in a manner that is accessible to readers. But we cannot rely on them to have the same accuracy as the sources they use. TFD (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not a historian and no indication the website is reliable.--PRL Dreams (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC on whether Olivia Rodrigo is a "singer-songwriter"
Olivia Rodrigo has an RFC over whether Rodrigo should be called a singer-songwriter in the article, instead of a singer and a songwriter. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Long War Journal
Please take part in Talk:2021_Taliban_offensive. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on first-ever “emergency” episode of The Joe Rogan Experience
A discussion is going on at Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience to include or exclude a statement on the “first-ever” “emergency” podcast. Input would be appreciated, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When can SPLC be treated as a 3rd party RS vs a primary source that needs to be first mentioned by a independent RS?
Recently a claim sourced to the SPLC hatewatch was added to Tim Pool. In 2021, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described Pool as "a pro-Trump social media personality". Absent 3rd party reporting of the source I removed the content and it was quickly restored with the claim that SPLC is a reliable source. My concern is that SPLC is a self published organization (not a new organization) so their opinions need to be reported by others to be considered DUE. I think adding their opinions absent other reasons/justification violates WP:SPS, ''Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. ''. Springee (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Per SPS they get a pass as acknowledged experts in the field. As long as we attribute I think it's fine.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The acknowledged expert pass in SPS does not apply to BLP's per SPS, and BLPSPS. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC) SPS, as they do not for that definition in
 * True I stand corrected, I was being somewhat generous when I described them as an sps (as WP:BLPSPS is clear, news blogs (for example) are allowed).Slatersteven (talk)
 * By that definition of self-published source, every newspaper is a self-published source. "SPLC" is not some individual, but an organization with an editorial system in place. It's not the author publishing themselves, it's an organization publishing an author. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This argument always ignores the inherent conflict of interest advocacy organizations have with respect to their own advocacy. Unless you want to suggest that all news organizations are engaging in top-down advocacy which builds in a conflict of interest between their writing teams and editorial teams.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are reasonable concerns with regard to third-partyness and WP:DUE; all I'm saying is that WP:SPS, which is about individuals publishing their own writing, is not applicable here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, per note 9 of WP: V " Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos:" this makes pretty clear that SPS is not limited to individuals publishing their own writing, and is absolutely applicable.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPLC is not a self-published source. Hatewatch is a part of its site that takes the form of a blog, but not all blogs are SPSs: in this case it has a status more like newsblogs. SPLC has been discussed here multiple times and the consensus has always been that it is generally reliable but perhaps partisan (and therefore best used with attribution, particularly for anything contentious) and that without secondary sources not all its claims would necessarily be noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They are self-published (they lack the type of independent, editorial review that a work like the NYTimes has), but we do recognize that their expertise in the area of hate crimes makes them a reasonable source to use with attribution in most cases. But that should be in corroboration when other sources also are along the same lines; SPLC has made some cases of calling groups/individuals into their hate group classifications on their own, that they had to back out of later. --M asem (t) 12:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But we do generally see a willingness to retract errors as a sign of reliability; no source is error-free. (Having said that, the SPLC definition of "hate group" is their own specific definition, and their designees should be described as "designated by the SPLC as a hate group", and not simply as "a hate group".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (they lack the type of independent, editorial review that a work like the NYTimes has) This claim requires evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually the reverse would be true. Unless your suggesting that The New York Times doesn't have independent editorial review and that we need to demonstrate it.  --Kyohyi (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of any type of editorial policy comparable to what most newspapers have in place eg like or, nor do they have an editor-in-chief or equivalent position listed in their main administration page. This is not to say they don't have an internal, not-well-advertized editorial process (their material is certainly usable, and as mentioned above, they do redact when they are shown wrong), but it is not likely to the rigors we expect from a high quality non-advocacy source like NYTimes. Hence why RS/P simply cautions the use of in-line attribution for them. --M asem  (t) 15:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of these responses, as well as the original critique I quoted seem to be under the misapprehension that the SPLC is a news outlet, or that it does or should function like a news outlet.
 * The claim I quoted looks to be suggesting that any individual producing content for the SPLC is free to produce whatever they like with little to no oversight, which is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence, as it flies in the face of the entire known history of the SPLC's output. WP:SELFPUB was written with individual writers in mind, and isn't applicable to group efforts, else all sources would be WP:SELFPUB except for press release clearinghouses and print-on-demand publishers, and even then, only if they had editorial boards (which they almost never do). If, instead, it's a criticism of the fact that the SPLC's output is a collective editorial effort (which it most certainly is; see the paragraph below), then it's a nonsensical criticism, as that fact doesn't impinge upon their reliability at all.
 * The SPLC is all editorial board: they don't have a distinction between journalists and editors. Their writers and management are all involved in the process of producing analyses, and all are subject-matter experts with a relevant specialty. They don't follow the process of generalist journalists writing subject-specfic stories, then having those stories reviewed by a mix of generalist and specialist editors before being approved for publication. They don't even produce traditional "stories" the way most news sources do, except on the Hatewatch blog, but even then, there's clearly some oversight in place, as there's no disclaimer.
 * What I'm looking for is any evidence that there's no collective analysis of the material they output. I've seen plenty of evidence (in the form of retractions and corrections) that there is collective analysis, and I've seen a lot of WP:USEBYOTHERS, as well as a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But I've also seen a lot of irrational hatred of and false claims about the SPLC, much of it making it's way into mainstream media (example), so I'm suspicious of any criticism of the group that's not specific, or not supported by evidence.
 * So, again: I'd like to see some evidence that the there's no accountability for the SPLC's output, else this claim is nothing more than a meaningless WP:IDONTLIKEIT comment on the SPLC.
 * I'll note that the followup commentary claiming that their error correction and fact checking isn't up to the standards of the NYT is yet another extraordinary claim lacking evidence, and even if convincing evidence can be found, the NYT is normally considered to be at or near the top of reliability scales, so being below them doesn't really say anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no misapprehension that the SPLC is a news outlet. The point is that it is an advocacy group, and that any internal fact-checking process has an inherent conflict of interest because it is an advocacy group.  And due to this conflict of interest it's internal fact-checking process cannot be considered independent.  Per note 9 on WP: V self-published sources are characterized by a lack of independent (those without a conflict of interest) review.  Since there is no independent review on the SPLC's own publishing's on it's own websites, all content from there falls in the characterization of self-published.  What matters in determining whether a source is self-published is the structure and relationship between publisher and writer.  Reputation, expertise, use by others, these things are not factors.  The standard isn't just oversight, but independent oversight.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that SLPC meets "has a reputation for fact-checking" (though again a few notable incidents over the last few years have dinted that reputation a bit but not to affect where it is at RS/P), but I still would argue that when we are judging RSes overall, the positive presence of a clear editorial policy and editorial staff, separate from the pool of writers, is a strong sign of having that type of inteneral-but-independent editorial review that we associate with works like the NYTimes and thus helps boosts the reliability of a source. The absence of these weakens an RS, though we do use its reputation from other RSes as well - failing to have a editorial statement does not ever exclude them from being an RS, and this I would consider the case for SPLC, its their reputation from other sources that puts them into the RS category. And to add, I also don't believe they are an SPS, as I do reasonably believe they have an internal editorial process, its just not spoken about to be able to judge. What RS/P says for SPLC is exactly how it should be used: its an RS where statements made to it should simply be attributed to the SPLC due to the nature of being an expert advocacy group. --M asem (t) 16:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not possibly disagree more that non-news organizations should be structured like news organizations in order to weight their reliability more, and I can't even imagine any logic that would support that. But the gist of what you're saying here is something I agree with: the SPLC is a reliable source, and should not be considered self-published as we interpret that term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to splcenter.org/hatewatch, "Hatewatch is a blog ...". According to Wikipedia's Tim Pool article, Tim Pool is a living person. According to WP:BLPSPS, "Never use self-published sources -- including ... blogs ... as sources of material about a living person ..." (with exceptions but claimed expertise isn't one of the exceptions). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. ".Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote more at length, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person". Clearly it's not saying "never use blogs" any more than it's saying "never use books". It's "never use self-published blogs", of which Hatewatch is not one; its writers work for the organization, but it's not that they are the organization. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is again where our definition of "self-published" breaks down. Using "author same as publisher" (like here) is too simple for more complex cases. I've argued a definition of where self-published means that the author is nearly in full control of publishing the work on their own with minimal oversight or review. Eg, one's own personal blog, most videos on YouTube, Medium posts, and Forbes contributor pieces, to name a few. The SPLC on the other hand seem to have some internal review before anything goes up on their website (just not the rigors of a fully independent editorial board like a newspaper) and thus most of their content would arguably not be "self-published" in this sense. It is still a factor that they are specifically biased in one area due to their established purpose, but recognized as an expert group in this area, and thus their statements should be attributed to them inline. --M asem  (t) 15:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, author same as publisher, just means author is the only one liable, the platform is not, or author has paid a self-publisher company. It's hard to imagine, more structural control, than the law holding you publisher are liable, for what someone wrote/did. The law holds the publisher is in full control and in full responsibility. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Liability is not the best measure for self-publishing, since the complexities of when and where something like Section 230 would apply to a "self-published" work published by a Forbes contributor - is that a "user" item or because Forbes is paying that contributor but disavowing their views, a Forbes responsibility? When it comes to "self-publishing" in terms of the intent of policy it applies to, it means that there's no checks for accuracy and other factors between the author and the publication. Obviously, the author publishing the work on their own website is self-published (the current definition) but that's why there's multiple other forms that exist beyond this, and that the "author is same as publisher, therefore self-publisher" is also not universally true as well. --M asem (t) 16:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The checking for accuracy is responsibility of a publisher, that's part of what it means to be a "publisher" in the U.S. As Forbes.com expressly says, they are "not the publisher" of "content supplied by other information content providers such as non-staff contributors . . . Pursuant to 47 U.S.C.§ 230, Forbes is not the publisher of such information and is therefore not liable . . . [it] cannot and does not monitor all of the information posted . . . and assumes no duty to monitor . . . for inappropriate or inaccurate content."  In law, a "publisher" is required to to be responsible for the accuracy of the writers.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone said we should not attribute to them?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe if I remember correctly JzG/Guy brought up something simliar discussion about the SPLC, related to this discussion. But essentially I think that we should only use SPLC in the cases which it has been backed by uses in secondary RSs, otherwise I sense we will run into BLP violations example. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is not what I asked about. No one has suggested we use SPLC without attribution. So any argugment based on us doing that is null and void.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misindented it, it that was not intended to be a reply to you, instead a general comment in reponse to the original post from Springee.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes, the sign of a good RS is that they own up to them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point. However, in my view especially given the type of labels the SPLC gives out I think it would be better to have secondary RS coverage on such labelling to confirm both WEIGHT and verifiablity especially as many are on BLPs.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk?#
 * commented, "SPLC is a self published organization (not a new organization) so so their opinions need to be reported by others to be considered DUE." While they are not self-published, with rare exceptions all opinions that are not reported in third party sources are UNDUE. The reason we routinely mention descriptions by the SPLC of organizations as hate groups etc., is that they are routinely reported in mainstream media and academic literature. This comment is not.
 * It is not however an opinion that Pool is "a pro-Trump social media personality." It's either true or false. Given that, as the Wikipedia article says, Pool is a media personality and supports Trump, I rate the claim as true. But then there is no reason to mention the SPLC in line or even to use the SPLC as a source. We wouldn't write for example, "According to the SPLC, "Elizabeth Warren is a U.S. Senator."
 * TFD (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like "pro-Trump social media personality" is maybe the least useful bit to take from that Hatewatch post: SPLC does great work researching and organizing information on hate and extremist groups and individuals. It seems a shame to throw away what could be very useful research by SPLC if used carefully and bolstered by other sources where needed. As an advocacy group they will probably be selective in their treatment, this is a post mainly about Twitter rather than Pool, and here they are nibbling around the edges of their core competency (they are discussing how extremism and hate are present on social media rather than hate and extremist groups themselves) all of which should call for extreme care in a BLP. Just pulling out a "pro-Trump" quote looks like a poor reading of the post and not the careful use required. fiveby(zero) 15:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ...uses his YouTube show to showcase far-right extremists such as...
 * Election Integrity Partnership...listed Pool among a group of verified Twitter “superspreaders” who pushed disinformation to Twitter following the 2020 election.
 * ...used his prodigious reach as a social media influencer to promote discussion about the idea that America is divided beyond repair and is doomed to descend into a second civil war.


 * I think that defining the SPLC as self-published is stretching that definition - it is widely-trusted and used by reliable sources, which shows that they respect its methodology and that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The more important question is where and when their opinion is WP:DUE and when it's appropriate to include it. As far as that goes, I would try to find secondary sources anyway, partially because we should avoid relying too heavily on opinions even from high-quality sources, partially because better sources almost certainly exist and partially because attributing an uncontroversial statement like this to the SPLC makes the claim narrower than is actually supported by the sources.  To wit:
 * Daily Beast: His videos, based on Pool’s background as a liberal reporter who became a Trump voter after feeling alienated from the modern left, have amassed more than 1.1 billion cumulative views. ... Pool’s business has boomed even as he faces accusations that he’s a major vector for right-wing disinformation. A recent report from a consortium of election-integrity groups listed Pool alongside the likes of Donald Trump Jr. and pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell as a “superspreader” for false election information. Also has secondary coverage
 * The Atlantic: Their false claims about election fraud were amplified on the incredibly popular YouTube channels run by Steve Bannon, Steven Crowder, and Tim Pool, and on the alternative cable networks Newsmax and One America News. But they didn’t change the results.
 * The Guardian: Out of the 21 top offenders, 15 were verified Twitter accounts – which are particularly dangerous when it comes to election misinformation, the study said. The “repeat spreaders” responsible for the most widely spread misinformation included Eric Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr and influencers like James O’Keefe, Tim Pool, Elijah Riot and Sidney Powell. All 21 of the top accounts for misinformation leaned rightwing, the study showed.
 * Forbes (staff, not contributor): The conspiracy theory was also pushed by allies of Trump on the internet fringe: One video posted to Facebook by right-wing journalist Tim Pool warning of a “leftist revolt” if Trump wins racked up more than 100,000 views...
 * Columbia Journalism Review: Pool, a former liberal who became a Donald Trump supporter...
 * That is more than enough to describe Pool as a Trump supporter in the article voice and to provide further material for a paragraph related to Pool's support of Trump and the activities he's taken as part of it (something that is, after all, not a particularly exceptional claim given that we cite him saying he voted for Trump a sentence earlier.) Why would we use the SPLC in a situation like that? Or, in other words - we commonly use the SPLC for controversial designations, with attributions and a secondary source; this is reasonable because other high-quality sources do so and the secondary sourcing establishes it is WP:DUE.  I am not sure we would need a secondary source for an uncontroversial opinion like this one, but why on earth would we want to cite (and therefore attribute) the SPLC for it in the first place when it is uncontroversial and therefore easily citeable to sources we can use for statements of fact? More broadly I agree with you that a lot seems missing from Pool's article - it has almost no coverage of his activities since the election, which have gotten massive amounts of secondary coverage and probably belong in the lead - but I think that, again, we can find better and broader sources than the SPLC as sources for that expansion. --Aquillion (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a catch 22 answer. If these other sources say he is a Trump supporter then we don't need to use an advocacy group's opinion, and specifically, the association with "Hatewatch" to make the claim in the article.  You have shown that we have good, non-controversial RSs making the claim so they should be used instead of an attribution to a group known for labeling people/groups as "haters".  Springee (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, basically. I think that Hatewatch is usable with caution in situations where its opinion is clearly important (which is always something debatable, but they're going to be one of the most usable think-tank / advocacy groups in that regard given the massive reliance on them by secondary sources)... but I see no reason why we would use it when sources we don't have to use with that caution are available for the same statement, especially since citing this to (and therefore, necessarily, attributing it to) the SPLC gives the impression that this is just their opinion when that doesn't really seem to be the case. And the ideal case to use the SPLC is always going to be when we have secondary sources describing something as their opinion (which is true for all opinions - the really, really important opinions are going to have secondary sources covering them anyway.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been an interesting discussion. Here is my view.  SPLC is a SPS in that it's an advocacy group and it has a perverse incentive to keep itself relevant by seeking and labeling groups/people to help ensure it remains relevant.  It doesn't appear to have any sort of independent review board and unlike a news organization which, presumably, does not have a perverse incentive to report things with a particular slant, the SPLC does.  I will grant it isn't a single or two person operation and may have a clear internal review process but absent information showing that we should not treat it like a generally reliable source.  The expert opinion designation is generally OK but this would open a second question.  Is mention in their "hatewatch" blog actually DUE for inclusion absent any 3rd party mention?  It seems this seems especially true with something like "Trump supporter" given nearly half the voters in the US were "Trump supporters".  This is especially problematic since associating anyone with "hatewatch" is inherently a contentious association.  I grant that this second argument falls into a NPOV territory rather than straight up RS question.  Still, with advocacy groups in general, especially one that has a perverse incentive to associate people with hate groups/hatewatch, we really should ask if we should include such content absent a 3rd party mention.  Springee (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Pool and "pro-Trump" is probably a poor example to use when discussing SPLC. How about Jeff Rense? In this case a quick search does not turn up a lot of secondary coverage, and maybe SPLC is the WP:BESTSOURCE? "Jeff Rense: In His Own Words", "Used Canard Salesman". Should the list of people appearing on the show be removed because it's only sourced to SPLC? What if i wanted to add something along the lines of: "marketing fraudulent alternative health care products such as the Rife Resonant Frequency Generator"? I'm not saying that it would be appropriate for everything in those two Hatewatch posts to make it into the article, but there is valuable information there that is probably only reported by SPLC, as a reader I would trust a WP article sourced to Hatewatch in this case. fiveby(zero) 14:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * SPLC is a reputable, trusted source that can be used independently without third-party corroboration. The article in question was written by Michael Edison Hayden and published by SPLC, so it's not self-published, and the editor contact at the bottom indicates some level of oversight and accountability for the content. Most sources are written to further some sort of goal, and few are entirely without bias. The question we should be asking would be "Is SPLC's description of Tim Pool as a 'pro-Trump media personality' so tainted by bias that it can't be used on Wikipedia" and the answer, in my opinion, is "no". There's no reason this can't be used with attribution in a BLP. –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

A subsection for advocacy groups?

 * Question for all… do we need more explicit guidance at WP:RS to cover the opinion statements of advocacy groups such as the SPLC? At the moment we have sub-sections that discuss 1) academic sources, 2) News sources and 3) biased/extreme sources.  While some advocacy orgs certainly fall under the last category, there are many (most?) that don’t.  I think they are a unique type of source, and thus may need their own subsection in the guideline. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think opinions in all these sources are treated in the same way. Any source is reliable for what its publishers say and their opinions are only reported when they have weight. There could however be a section in RS. It should include thinktanks. TFD (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would say it should cover: thinktanks, advocacy-oriented non-profits, and professional organizations such as the AANP, AMA, AAPA, and the AAUP, just to think of a few in my wheelhouse. I would want it to cover each of these categories as a separate case, though. Because there is a sort of nuance when an organization like the AANP or the AMA is discussing heart disease versus when it's advocating for certain regulations vis a vis professional licensure. See the recent statement of the AAPA (formerly referred to as the American Association of Physician Assistants) advocating for its members to be referred to as "Physician Associates" for example.  -- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To me the distinction is between general and specialized sources. For an article about a general topic with massive coverage, such as the Republican Party, I would use major mainstream media for current information. But if the article was about a tiny extremist group, I would use the SPLC because it would provide information that other sources ignored. That's also why I wouldn't use it for the Republican Party. Specialized sources are very helpful for articles about topics that have limited coverage, but may provide excessive information about topics that have large coverage. TFD (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the groups you mentioned, one thing I'd point out is that some sources have substantial power and influence; this can make their opinions WP:DUE completely irrespective of their reliability. If eg. the AARP takes a position on pending legislation, that is significant because it has substantial impact on whether that legislation will pass.  The caveat is that groups with that much power tend to attract substantial coverage anyway, so it should be easy to find secondary coverage - if an editor has to constantly argue "this group is important and influential, so we can cite them as a primary source!", it's fair to eventually start asking "why do we have to keep citing them as a primary source, tho?  Shouldn't their statements be getting secondary coverage?" I also think that TFD has a point that the most likely situation where it makes sense to cite such primary sources is when the main topic has limited coverage (so secondary coverage wouldn't be expected.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No as policy is really very clear, bias is not a valid reason to exclude.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is usually a non-issue because such sources are usually considered experts in their field, and fall under the exception of self published sources which are experts. The problem always arises due to higher sourcing requirements on BLP's prohibiting sources that don't have an independent review process, which is something these sources can't have due to their inherent Conflict of interest with regards to their own advocacy.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict of interest as defined in policy. I suppose you think the Harvard Law Review is questionable because it advocates obeying the law or the British Medical Journal is questionable because it advocates for health. TFD (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The naivety of this response is telling. The question is are there independent fact checkers verifying information, this ties into the principle of self-dealing which is a conflict of interest matter.  Conflict of interest is not whether or not an entity has acted improperly.  It is whether or not there is motive and opportunity to do so--Kyohyi (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

See Conflict of interest: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." In this case it would mean members of the SPLC contributing to the article about themselves or organizations they have a financial interest in.

I think what you mean is that the fact the SPLC holds a negative opinion of extremist groups means that they cannot write accurately about them. But that's twisted logic. The reason the SPLC holds a negative opinion of extremist groups is that they have investigated them. The values the SPLC have are opposition to bigotry and violence, which are shared by rational people. Similarly, medical experts oppose human suffering which is caused by disease. That doesn't mean that their descriptions of viruses and bacteria will be inaccurate. TFD (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to this. This is possibly the most common misunderstanding of WP:COI I see. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously, when WP: V is talking about Conflict of interest in note 9, it is not talking about WP: COI. This is because WP: COI deals with wikipedia editors, and it's fucking obvious in the context of note 9 that it is talking about the review process being used in publishing, which wikipedia editors should not be involved in.  These are two different things.  The SPLC is selling that they have the values of being opposed to bigotry and violence, which also means that they have an incentive for characterizing people they oppose as bigots and violent, that is their product as an advocacy group.  This means that their internal reviewers are not independent of the end product, they have a financial interest in selling the advocacy.  --Kyohyi (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's one of the most incomprehensibly nonsensical arguments I've heard about anything. Ever.
 * Let's look at the text of note 9, which you referred to:
 * (I've excluded the two examples because they don't change anything)
 * So you seem to be arguing based on one of two factually inaccurate assumptions, here. Either you think that the SPLC somehow runs those hate groups, or you think that the SPLC is a for-profit venture.
 * Well, neither of those things are true.
 * As far as the SPLC's motivations to characterize "those they oppose as bigots and violent", have you ever stopped to ask yourself who, exactly the SPLC opposes and why? Seriously, think about it. I'm sure you can puzzle it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of your assumptions are accurate. First, you don't have to have a profit to have a financial incentive, though that is rather irrelevant.  The Catholic church has the same conflict of interest with regards to it's own moral claims.  There is substantial cultural soft power with being seen as a moral authority, the way you frame the question "have you ever stopped to ask yourself who, exactly the SPLC opposes and why?" should give you insight into this.  But here's a parallel question, Who does the SPLC not oppose and why?  Seriously, think about it.  Think about what it means to be on either side of this question.  Then maybe you can see the conflict of interest that internal reviewers have.  --Kyohyi (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of your assumptions are accurate.
 * I haven't made any assumptions. I quoted the note you referred to and drew inescapably logical conclusions about your assumptions from that. And to be fair, I only used the word "assumption" because you've given me little reason to believe you'd understand what I meant if I said "axiom" instead.
 * First, you don't have to have a profit to have a financial incentive I think you need to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word "profit", because you don't seem to understand what it means. By definition, there must be some profit involved for there to exist a financial motive.
 * The Catholic church has the same conflict of interest with regards to it's own moral claims. lol This is beyond ridiculous. What, exactly, do you think the Catholic Church's financial stake is in, for example, people being kind to strangers?
 * There is substantial cultural soft power with being seen as a moral authority I thought you were claiming they had a financial motive. This is not a financial motive. Do you understand what "financial" means? And how, exactly would the SPLC benefit from such "soft power"? And what makes you think the SPLC is seen as a moral authority, in any case? Every new twist of logic you engage in here brings only more questions whose answers must be contradicted by others, to support your case.
 * Who does the SPLC not oppose and why? Non-bigoted groups and people. Because they're not bigoted. I can't help but notice you refused to answer my question. I understand that you're trying to make the case that the SPLC is anti-conservative, but you're doing a crap job of it, mostly because they very clearly aren't partisan the way you (and other conservatives) think they are.
 * Think about what it means to be on either side of this question. I've spent most of my life trying not to think like a bigot, and I'm not about to start now. If, instead, you mean "try to think like a conservative", then you should know that I was raised a conservative, I share more than a few opinions with conservatives, believe very strongly in just about every value conservative profess to hold, am considered "center-right, but like, in an good way" by many of the more left-leaning people I know (though I consider myself quite liberal, given where I came from), and from that actual experience with conservative thought and discussions with many conservative people, the major factor for opposing the SPLC is in my response to your next quote.
 * Then maybe you can see the conflict of interest that internal reviewers have. Not unless by "conflict of interest" you mean "they say things I don't like to hear about people who say thing I like to hear," which is a problem better solved by you conforming what you like to hear to reality than by trying to argue that reality reflects the things you like to hear.
 * If there was even a shred of truth to your claims, you'd be able to point to at least once incident and say "See? This is where they spread misinformation, this is how we know it was misinformation and this is the benefit they gained by doing so." If you were actually correct, you'd have dozens of such cases. But you haven't got a single one, just vague hand-waving and hollow accusations of concepts you don't even demonstrate any understanding of, and the occasional mistake made (and almost invariably quickly corrected) by the SPLC.
 * You can respond if you want. I'll tell you right now that I'm not going to bother reading any more of these nonsense arguments. As amusing as this has been, I really have better things to do than watch you engage in some half-hearted mental gymnastics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to not respond, but you're pretty much wrong on everything here.  The strawman of what you think my assumptions are (e.g. your assumptions) coupled with the false dilemma of the options you gave demonstrate your logical prowess.  You don't need a profit motive to have a financial motive.  The motive to acquire funds sufficient for operation is still a financial motive, and no profit exists.  No, the catholic church has a financial motive in people believing it is a moral authority.  That's why they will go to great lengths to cover up misbehavior, and why internal checks for such behavior have a conflict of interest.  Remember, this is about conflict of interest.  You seriously make appeal to emotions arguments, and don't understand what soft power is?  I'm sure you believe that nothing you've ever done has been bigoted, or has had  the thought pattern of a bigot, and you are the most perfect saint in existence.  Again the conflict of interest is independent of the advocacy that the group engages in.  It is because both the writer and the reviewer are both part of the advocacy group.  It's their relationship not their ideology which is creating the conflict of interest.
 * And you demonstrate your lack of understanding by requesting that we find an instance of "misinformation". Instances of ethical lapses are irrelevant to the existence of a conflict of interest. Though if you really wanted to find out you could look at our own article on the advocacy group and find some lawsuits about their publishings, which forced them to issue retractions and apologies.  This of course only happened due to outside influence, but again this is really besides the point--Kyohyi (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And you demonstrate your lack of understanding by requesting that we find an instance of "misinformation". Instances of ethical lapses are irrelevant to the existence of a conflict of interest. Though if you really wanted to find out you could look at our own article on the advocacy group and find some lawsuits about their publishings, which forced them to issue retractions and apologies.  This of course only happened due to outside influence, but again this is really besides the point--Kyohyi (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the SPS angle is irrelevant… the important thing to remember when presenting what think tanks and advocacy groups say is that they are Primary sources for their own opinions. This is why their opinions should be attributed in text (not presented as fact in WP’s voice) and why there are limited situations in which it is appropriate to mention what they say. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case… I think we can close out this sub-section. It seems there is at least some support for expanding WP:RS to include guidance on think tanks and advocacy groups… how to word such guidance (what it should or should not say) can be discussed on the talk page of the guideline itself. This isn’t really the venue for that.  Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The question at the top of the thread was When can SPLC be treated as a 3rd party RS vs a primary source.... Speaking on publications by such organizations in general (including the "Amnesty", think tanks, etc.) I think they are RS, and their publications are usually not primary or self-published sources. Certain publications by such organizations can even qualify as research conducted by experts, more or less close to academic sources. Some other publications may be not so good, depending on specific authors and organizations. This needs to be judged on a case to case basis. Note that many academics have strong personal views or original ideas on their subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an appropriate question would be when is it DUE to mention the opinion of the SPLC? Is there opinion DUE simply because they mention it or would it only be DUE when a RS mentions it first?  Given their perverse incentive to fear monger in hate I would suggest their opinions should only be mentioned when the specific opinion is given weight by a 3rd party.  At least I would suggest that should be true when dealing with their blog section. Springee (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed to death (see WP:SPLC). There is a clear consensus that the SPLC is a reliable although opinionated source when it comes to hate groups and extremist politics, and that it can be used as such with proper in-text attribution. Your assertion that the SPLC's reliability should be downgraded or subject to special rules because of its "perverse incentive to fear monger in hate [sic]" is bizarre. It reminds me of the cranks who say that cancer researchers can't be trusted to provide reliable information because of their supposed "perverse incentive" to keep treating a steady stream of cancer patients.There is no requirement that reliably-sourced content first be mentioned in a different reliable source to be included. Nor is it particularly controversial to say that a pro-Trump media personality is a "pro-Trump media personality". This is basically the opposite of a WP:REDFLAG claim&mdash;t's a statement of the obvious. I'm left confused about why the SPLC in particular is such an irritant and why it provokes such curious reasoning and special pleading. MastCell Talk 17:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, RSOPINION tells us not to include every random commentary that may be put out by even RSes, but if there is commentary picked up by third parties, that's reasonable to include - that avoids WP editors using OR to decide who's commentary to include particularly on controversial topics. But when we know (via consensus) that an RS is an expert source on a narrow topic (like SPLC on hate groups, or a notable movie critic on films) then yes, there's no reason not to incorporate their works with attribution on appropriate topics. But I would say that this should be if other sources appear to corroborate (not necessarily by direct mention of the SPLC) the SPLC's assessment of the person/group being related to hate groups. If we have a whole article that has no mention to connect to anything related to hate, racism, etc. and then include the SPLC's inclusion of that person/group on their lists, that stands out as a problem. Likely that can be fixed by finding RSes to add to the article, but we do know a few cases of SPLC making assessments that do not agree with any media coverage and they have had to retract later (eg the case around Max Blumenthal is in this realm). But if SPLC is not the only RS connecting the group to hate groups, then the SPLC's addition isn't a problem. --M asem (t) 18:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MC, the SPLC certainly is not without controversy.[][] but there is another factor that is perhaps more relevant. When someone makes it to a SPLC list it is almost always a contentious claim or, as in this case, one that could be sourced to something less contentious than the "hatewatch" blog.  If we believe that part of our BLP policy is in effect, do no harm, then we shouldn't accept "hatewatch" type associations absent other sources citing the claim.  In the Tim Pool case, it seems the easy solution is simply cite the claim to better RSs.  If the SPLC was the only source to make the claim should we consider it DUE?  My feeling is no. Springee (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MC, I think the problem is that there is a lot of public support for many of the views the SPLC describes as hate speech and right-wing extremism and the organizations that propagate them. That the former president made direct appeals to them is evidence of their support. Among the most common of these views are that the Democrats are socialists, Islam is evil, antifa (financed by George Soros) is behind the BLM protests and the government is going to take your guns away. If someone believes any of those or similar things, they are going to blame to organization dedicated to researching them. TFD (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Masem, no. WP:RSOPINION absolutely does not say anything about the need for third-party support as a requirement for mentioning reliable/opinionated material. I understand that Springee, you, and others are trying to construct that requirement for the SPLC, and it's a fair discussion to have, but please don't mischaracterize existing policy.Springee, thanks for reminding me that the SPLC is "not without controversy", but the 18 prior go-rounds had sort of clued me in already. It would be useful, in starting a new discussion about the SPLC, to acknowledge and summarize those 18 prior discussions and the existing consensus that you are trying to modify. Besides which, I don't see how it is a "contentious claim" to say that a pro-Trump media personality is a "pro-Trump media personality".TFD, yes, I would agree that the mainstreaming of extremist viewpoints in the recent past has complicated our efforts to cover them. MastCell Talk 16:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not an RSOPINION factor (what I was speaking to) but more an UNDUE factor: if SPLC is the only body out of all possible RSes (including SPLC) that calls a person or group related to a hate group, with no other source even coming close to that, including the SPLC's stance would be potentially a UNDUE issue because of their potential bias. Obviously, when the SPLC aligns well with a group being called a white supremacist group or the like by multiple RSes, then there's every reason to include the SPLC without an RS specifically mentioning them, as that's adding an expect RSOPINION to join the DUE coverage of that view. It's when we're on this stretching or cherry picking area (which doesn't happen too frequently with the SPLC but can be an issue) where only they, and maybe one or two other lesser RSes, are making this call. In that case, that's definitely a matter of an UNDUE problem to include. --M asem (t) 16:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on the "perverse incentive" allegation: I don't think this argument has any legitimacy here. All publications have an incentive to draw attention to the topics they report on: astronomy magazines, for instance, have a "perverse incentive" to make it seem like astronomy is the most important topic in the universe (and when astronomy is the topic of a Wikipedia article, we're going to want to turn to an astronomy publication for details that would be missed by more generalist sources). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. It's also akin to suggesting that the American Cancer Society is unreliable because it has a "conflict of interest" in hyping the threat of cancer. It's disappointing to see how central this lazy and fundamentally silly argument is to the discussion above. MastCell Talk 16:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We mitigate the incentive by separating the writers of the particular topic and fact checkers of the particular topic, this should be done in the publication process. There's this stupid argument that we are talking about general reliability, and not specific reliability when dealing with BLP's.  It's not X group is unreliable.  It's X group is self-publishing, and we never use self-published sources for for BLP's.  Not sometimes, not maybe, not in certain circumstances, but never.  It is absolutely frustrating that people don't actually address this argument, and try to frame it as a general reliability issue when it is not.  --Kyohyi (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that you're trying to expand the definition of "self-published source" to such a ridiculous extreme that even the New York Times could be labeled a "self-published source" by editors motivated to discredit it. People are pushing back because they intuitively recognize that as a bad idea and a bad precedent, even if they're not articulating their discomfort as well as you'd like. MastCell Talk 17:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this argument above. Unless you're trying to argue that a news organization like the New York Times is engaging in advocacy as an organization then you don't have the same problem.  The problem exists due to the advocacy nature (that it has a position that it is trying to get you to adopt) of the organization which controls both the writing and the reviewing.  Can a person try to argue this for the New York Times, sure, but they would have to try to provide evidence of this organizational advocacy.  Groups like the SPLC are open about it's advocacy, so we don't have to prove it.  If you think this is a huge expansion I am more than willing to hear your interpretation of note 9 on WP: V.  Specifically what it means to be an independent reviewer, and what constitutes a conflict of interest as a reviewer.  --Kyohyi (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem exists due to the advocacy nature (that it has a position that it is trying to get you to adopt) of the organization which controls both the writing and the reviewing. To be perfectly clear, that position is "Don't be a bigot."
 * How incredibly partisan of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And the spanish inquisition existed to stop unjust executions. Would you like to make another "I like them" argument?--Kyohyi (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And the spanish inquisition existed to stop unjust executions. No, it didn't. It existed to stamp out heresy among nominal converts to Christianity from other religions. Before you make such obviously false claims again, you should probably be aware that all of us have an encyclopedia close to hand, and you could use it to ensure that something you're about to say isn't just blatantly false.
 * Would you like to make another "I don't like them and I don't care whether my efforts to make other people dislike them have any basis in reality" argument?
 * I also think it rather odd that you would suggest that a dislike of bigotry is a personal preference of mine. Probably not the sort of thing you want to be implying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please demonstrate your moral righteousness, so that us worldly bigots can bask in your glory. It's not that you dislike bigotry, it's that I doubt that you can exhaustively identify it.  And you pretty clearly missed the point of the spanish inquisition statement.  It was a sarcastic rejection of you're statement on their position of "Don't be a bigot".  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understood your attempted Spanish inquisition point quite well, it's just that the Spanish inquisition was never even nominally about stopping unjust executions. If you don't understand why that matters, then I'm afraid I can't help you. Also it's "your", not "you're".
 * If you don't have anything other than this screed to add, then I'll consider your argument thoroughly refuted and we can move on to more productive matters. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can believe whatever you wish, the fact that you are resorting grammar as opposed to addressing my argument shows just all that you've refuted. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look up the difference between "instead of" and "in addition to", because I've pointed out several enormous flaws in your logic, and your response was to write a screed that pretends bigotry and the lack thereof are morally equivalent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The New York Times, like any news outlet, has a bias. It supports for example freedom of speech, assembly, association, religion and due process. Ironically, it also supports the same view of extremism and hate as the SPLC. If most editors don't notice this, it's because they share those values. TFD (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Advocacy and conflict of interest are not bias. Advocacy is deliberate direction to invoke change.  While Advocacy can create bias, bias itself is not advocacy.  --Kyohyi (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Except, with the NYT (and other media sources) we do distinguish between journalism and opinion. We say that op/Ed material has to be hedged and presented AS opinion… with in text attribution. Shouldn’t we do the same for the opinions of advocacy groups and think tanks? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And to that same point, there are times that the SPLC does respectable not-too-obvious-biased journalism, mostly stuff linked from their Publications page (eg I remember their 2019 study on Confederate statues as being a reasonable source).  Or to make a separate comparison, the Pew Research Center is known for their work in covering media, and their publications  are generally all good stuff, but I would be wary of rushing in to use one of their Short Reads which don't have the same review rigors and thus may be prone to opinion. From either SPLC or Pew, I'd still be in-line attributing their research publications. --M asem  (t) 12:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is just that - they have a financial motive and that makes the source questionable. Advocacies make their money because of their interests - be they good or bad - we are not here to judge and we must stay away from OR in making such determinations about a source we happen to agree with despite their COI. We include ALL substantial views - BALANCE - and let the reader determine whether or not the COI influences the statement/material. We are talking about huge amounts of money that these "causes/advocacies" are making - again, it doesn't matter to the encyclopedia if it is a good cause or a bad cause. NPOV is paramount as is NOR, dispassionate tone, V, and using high quality RS. See this as for journalism: "But the shift in mainstream American media — driven by a journalism that is more personal, and reporters more willing to speak what they see as the truth without worrying about alienating conservatives — now feels irreversible. It is driven in equal parts by politics, the culture and journalism’s business model, relying increasingly on passionate readers willing to pay for content rather than skittish advertisers." ~NYTimes, June 7, 2020 - NYTimes  Atsme 💬 📧 13:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Assessing a source to determine whether it is opinion or fact is not OR. We do this all the time. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * they have a financial motive
 * The SPLC is a non-profit group. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, they do actively fund-raise, which drives their non-profit activities. Though I would weight their financial "conflict" lower than their ideological "conflict" if we are discussing their source aspects like RS independence from a topic. --M asem (t) 16:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesus ascending to heaven.jpg
 * Fund-raising is called fund-raising because it produces funds. If it produced profits, we'd call it "profit raising". Now, I don't know how much experience you have with organizational management, but "funds" and "profit" are two very different things. Profits are desirable and motivating. Funds are a necessary evil whose collection, accounting and use are avoided whenever possible (though that ain't very often).
 * The fact that the SPLC needs money to do it's work is categorically not evidence of a financial incentive to their work. The fact that they're a non-profit organization categorically is evidence that their work is not motivated by financial gain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly compared to something like a PAC, yes, the fundraising by the SPLC is more about their organization's lifeblood for all purposes, though the more funding they get, the more advocacy they can do. But as I said, that's why I would not place too much weight on that financial interest as a concern over their ideological interest first and foremost; its just that "financial interest" is non-zero even for a non-profit. --M asem (t) 17:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The financial interest of a non-profit and a for-profit are apples and oranges, this line of thought leads to weird reasoning like what I saw at Talk:Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum in which a purported general financial interest is used to try to disqualify a non-profit from being used as a source in their area of expertise. The argument went: "define systematic and severe. I've worked in the region for 35 years and lived here in the Emirates for over 28 years, working mostly in media here. I've never seen these 'systematic and severe' violations. I've never even seen one. I must be wholly blind or perhaps there's another narrative not quite as fund-raisingly eye-catching as that presented - based on a tiny number of alleged cases - by Amnesty, HRW and Freedom House.” Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are a hammer then a lot of things look like nails. If you are an organization centered around identifying hate groups, you're going to see a lot of hate groups. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is honestly the best argument for that position I've seen in this entire discussion. I'm not even exaggerating. This isn't even the best of some okay-ish arguments, it's literally the only reasonable argument that the SPLC might not be the ultimate authority on hate groups that makes any sense whatsoever.
 * That being said, while I'd concede this point, I'd counter by pointing out that it only establishes that they have some bias towards a broader definition of "hate" than other sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, though, if you're an organization centered around identifying hate groups in a period when their rhetoric and appeal has been mainstreamed by a major political party, then you're also going to see a lot of hate groups. If all you have is a hammer and suddenly people start dropping boxes of nails on top of you, you're going to be be busy. That doesn't necessarily suggest that the SPLC is indiscriminate or overbroad in their work. MastCell Talk 18:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which means they are stating their opinion… I would say it is a noteworthy opinion, BUT opinions need to be hedged with in text attribution and NOT stated as fact. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is, in fact, the existing consensus and exactly what was done in the article in question. Springee, the original poster in this thread, is trying to exclude even attributed mention of SPLC findings unless they are first separately mentioned in another source. MastCell Talk 18:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I an suggesting that the opinions in the "Hatewatch" blog shouldn't be given WEIGHT without secondary mention. In the case that opened this discussion it's clear other, non-opinion, sources have the same view so we can attribute the statement to them vs "Hatewatch".  If Hatewatch is the only source for a claim then it probably isn't DUE. If a RS mentions a claim made by Hatewatch then it probably is due with attribution.  Springee (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This correlates with how I framed it above: as long as other RSes (included in the article) already speak about the group or person in relation to hate aspects (white s/n, alt/far right, racism, etc.), then adding the SPLC's in-line attributed statement is 100% acceptable, we don't need any source to specifically call out the SPLC, since we recognize the group as experts in this field. However, if the SPLC is the only major source providing that stance, then it would be UNDUE to include it. --M asem (t) 14:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes this is true but I also think the hammer (which has some nails of its own) is also now attempting to pound nails, screws, tacks, needles, and pins, bolts, tape, glue, and any other fastening devices it can find. I do think it is perfectly fine to attribute labels to the SPLC and readers can make their own conclusions as to the appropriateness of the label. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's genericize this since people get too worked up on the group in question. Person X works for organization A, and they are responsible for a product. Person Y also works for organization A. If organization A does bad financially, then Person X and Person Y could be out of a job. If person Y is reviewing the product they have two incentives. One to make sure that the product has no flaws so it sells well. And two to hide any possible flaws so the product sells well. An ethical reviewer would choose the first option, however it is the existence of the second option which is the conflict of interest, note this is independent of any actual choices that person Y makes. There can be separation built into an organization that gets rid of this. Such as Person X works for one group within Organization A, person Y works for a different group, and Organization A does not manage the direction of these two groups. Or we could have a situation where the reviewer works for a separate organization altogether, In this case the reviewer does not have incentive to hide any flaws in the product. --Kyohyi (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No need for a separate section, there's nothing special about advocacy groups that requires them to be assessed differently than other sources. The "conflict of interest" issue is completely without merit. If an organization was found to be fabricating false facts for fundraising then obviously we would proceed accordingly, but there's no evidence of a widescale problem that would lead us to assume this for all groups. In fact we could just as easily say (and would have just as much evidence) that groups like SPLC have a financial incentive to maintain very high editorial standards in order to maintain their reputation and attract donations. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * COI is even for pervasive than that. I am going to give an example where every one in this discussion has bias: Wikipedia.  Almost all of us are engaged in this discussion because we are familiar with wikipedia, and support its principles and at least most of its practices.  We are all also aware of some of its shortcomings. though we probably disagree on which. In an outside discussion about WP, some of us are likely to deny or minimize the shortcomings; some of us are at least in some contexts likely to emphasise them, in particular the ones that we may feel particularly. Not a single one of us can really be trusted to have an absolutely NPOV, and may refuse to accept the most solidly based sociological studies if they disagree with our own perceptions. We are none of us here for profit in the financial sense. We are all of us here to serve some motive of our own, or we would not choose to spend our time and effort here.  When I teach about Wikipedia, I do so in such as way as to encourage people to contribute, but to contribute in the specific ways I would like more people to contribute.
 * as for an earlier example: if I am a member of SPLC, I want its views to be accepted. This may indeed lead me to support its having high editorial standards. But it will probably also lead me to want it to be as widely an influence in the world as possible, and therefore covering situations conceivably within its scope, even if they are not reasonably so.  It is not a potential situation of fabricating false facts, but of emphasis on particular aspects.  I may have no financial interest in its success, but I will at the least have a reputation interest in its success. And I will likely also have a specific agenda, and want it to cover as many incidents or groups of one particular type to the exclusion of others. It is possible to be a member of SPLC and also a misogynist, or a member and also a feminist. It is very possible to be a member and also a committed conservative Christian, or a member and resent conservative Christianity. It is possible to be a member and a committed Jew, and even possible to be a member and an antisemite. One's politics might be otherwise right-wing, or otherwise left.     DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In an outside discussion about WP, some of us are likely to deny or minimize the shortcomings Every single time I've seen someone off-wiki give a compelling reason why no-one should use WP as a primary source of knowledge (which is to distinguish them from those who rant about our "biases" and say we're "a joke" without ever making a coherent case as to why) I've asked that person if they edit WP, and invariably, the answer is "Yes". I think you're entirely conflating the way people feel about WP's mission and the way they feel about it's reputation. The majority of editors I know wouldn't care one bit whether WP's reputation matches its ideals, and of those who do, I can't name a single one who cares more about that reputation than the mission.
 * as for an earlier example: if I am a member of SPLC, I want its views to be accepted. This may indeed lead me to support its having high editorial standards. But it will probably also lead me to want it to be as widely an influence in the world as possible, and therefore covering situations conceivably within its scope, even if they are not reasonably so. Ignoring the previously-mentioned points that this argument presumes that people even care about the reach of their organization, and that it presumes those who do care more about the organization's reputation than it's mission (both of which are shockingly ignorant of the psychology of people who tend to volunteer or work for non-profits, see         ), it's such a pervasive and universal statement as to be completely meaningless. This argument could be applied to literally every organization in the world. So the NYT is unreliable because some employees care whether or not the NYT is widely seen as reliable. It's an utterly nonsensical argument.
 * I'd like to quote someone who agrees with you, above, in regards to the commentary of literally everyone but Mr. Ernie who's commented some argument for not considering the SPLC entirely reliable here: ...people get too worked up on the group in question.
 * Yes. Yes they do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of a specific BBC report
Hello, a specific BBC report contains a claim [] that the Oromo language is the fourth most spoken language in Africa, it is used in the Oromo language & Oromo people articles. Statements: "and the fourth-most widely spoken language of Africa" "and the fourth-most widely spoken language of Africa, after Arabic, Hausa and Swahili.["

●How accurate is this source? I'm asking this because according to another source at least 4 other African languages have more native speakers and 7 other languages have more total speakers, even though they don't rank them. Can i list the other source here as well, or do i need to open a second RFC? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * What's the other source? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When equally valid rs disagree, the usual procedure is to include all the differing sources.Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

●@ProcrastinatingReader, Other source is Ethnologue [], and it has also been used at the Oromo language article, among others. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Selfstudier Yeah but are they equally valid? And is the source accurate.  Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By equally valid, I mean considered equally as RS, without reservations, the BBC qualifies in that respect. We don't "do" accuracy, we go by what the balance of rs says, if several rs agree about something and one doesn't, we might conclude that the one is non representative.Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use a news story for this type of information. News media are reliable sources for news, not analysis, per news organizations. Presumably the reporter did not poll everyone in Africa to form this conclusion but got the information from someone else, although as is common with tangential information in news stories, no source is provided. TFD (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on the programme really. A BBC Nature documentary I'd imagine is likely to be fact checked thoroughly. This is Newsday (TV programme), and I'm uncertain how reliable a passing comment in a specific programme is going to be, or if amendments will be published if they discover an error. I can't access that URL but Ethnologue seems reliable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.langcen.cam.ac.uk/resources/lango/oromo.html has the same sentence as the beeb."Oromo is the fourth most widely spoken African language after Arabic, Hausa and Swahili." So if it was me I would be inclined to go with that unless a good reason not to.Selfstudier (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Selfstudier Well that source claims Oromos make up 40% of the population, and that it has 30 million speakers. 30:40x100 = 75 million, Ethiopia's population is above 100 million, outdated to say the least, and inaccurate because Oromo people make up 34,5% of the population according to national census, cia world factbook. You said Wikipedia don't do accuracy, but i think readers and editors would appreciate an accurate up to date source, that's my view, but i came here for others input, and if the consensus here says otherwise, that's also fine by Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only tell you what I think, on WP we go by the sources. If you think some sources are inaccurate for some reason, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that by way of alternative equally valid rs.Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader Yeah forget to mention it's paywalled/subscription needed, i don't have acces to Ethnologue either, you have to ask Wikipedia Resource Exchange(i did for the Amharic language), but the figures have been verified by users who do have acces.
 * ●This user also made great points at the talk page[] Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you got multiple reliable sources in disagreement, and no good reason to ignore one of them (such as it being older or less reliable in some way), then safest thing to do is probs to report both figures with in-text attribution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The fourth largest language in Africa claim seems to be quite widespread, there is another scholarly article here from 1990 that makes the claim, as does this one from this year. The BBC source might not be the best in the world, but there is plenty out there to source the claim. Tbh, stuff like this is usually better dealt with by googling around to find more sources before getting into massive arguments.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This RFC can be closed, it has been resolved through talk page consensus. @Boynamedsue There are Conflicting sources when you google about this, the 1990 article cites Hudson Grover from 1982, and the other article cites Dibaba source 2020, who also claims Oromo are 40% of the population of Ethiopia, in contradiction with other sources such as national census, which makes it the almost exactly similar as the langcen source provided by here above by another user. Anyways thanks for your input Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @ProcrastinatingReader We found a middle way. But thanks for mentioning in-text attribution Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

LowTierGod's legal name & sourcing from live-stream
Low Tier God is a live-streamer in the fighting game community (Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc). He seems to have taken on the stage name of "Dalauan Sparrow", even though he has publicly stated what his legal name is numerous times on his own live-streams. Can his own statement about his legal name be used as a source in an article about himself? It seems to meet all the criteria for WP:SELFSOURCE, being that he is the source, he is talking about himself and not any 3rd parties, it is not an undue or exceptional claim and there is no reason to doubt it, and the wikipedia article is not primarily based on this information. If anyone is tempted to bring up WP:BLPPRIVACY, I'll reiterate that this information was disclosed by the subject himself over his own public livestream, freely and willingly, so is it reasonable to infer that he would object to this information being made public when it was he himself who did just that?

The potential issue here is that live-streams are not typically archived in perpetuity on live-streamer channels. They may remain for a period of time but eventually "expire" off the platform as many streamers produce nearly endless hours of content, 7 days a week, and maintaining all that content indefinitely would be a significant effort for any platform even with storage media being cheap and abundant as it is currently. Such is the case with the clip of him stating his legal name - it is no longer viewable on his channel where it originated, although it WAS technically "published" (referring to WP:PUBLISHED here) in that it was BROADCAST over live-stream, and the clip of the statement has been archived by other parties across the internet, fulfilling the "archival" requirement of the "published" definition, and again in this context the subject is a reliable / reputable source for information about himself in an article about himself. These archived copies can be produced to verify the original source if needed, even though the policy clearly states that "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet".

I'll add that this doesn't only pertain to this subject, it is a potential issue for anyone in the live-streaming space, especially when you consider that many live-stream personalities may not become famous or relevant enough for a Wikipedia article until many years after they have begun live-streaming, and by that time much of their prior live-streams will have disappeared off of the platform, so to not allow an archived source of this type would be to disqualify a lot of potentially valuable information about the relevant subject that they willingly provided themselves.

Source: The original source was a live-stream broadcast from the subject himself, which is no longer available online, but an archived clip of the source can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cewswguuz964xu/20-12-15-00-12-02_01.mp4?dl=0

Article: LowTierGod

Content: "Yes my government name is Dale Wilson" - Gill is trash (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of all the other issues, I'm not convinced with the quality of this archive. Why does it cut exactly after he says what his government name is? Strange. JBchrch   talk  19:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply for brevity as it was excerpted from a stream that was many hours long. Gill is trash (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see—however in my view this archive is too low-fi to be used a source in a BLP article. JBchrch   talk  19:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this "archive" violates WP:COPYVIOEL as there is no evidence that this person agreed that their content could be hosted there. The context is that there are many trolls who have attacked and vandalized the article LowTierGod repeatedly, and among their obsessions is adding this person's "real name" or "birth name" or "legal name" to the article. It is constant and unrelenting. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  19:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I asked you in the subjects talk page, where does it say that the "archive" referenced in the "published" definition needs to not be a copyright violation? And further, referring to the same policy / definition, why is "linking" to it an issue when "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." ? Can't the source be cited without a direct link to it? As for the fidelity of the archive, yes it is low-fi, but so was the original live-stream source. If a better quality archive can be produced, would that suffice? Gill is trash (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When inclusion of the content is challenged (and I am challenging it), then a reference to a reliable source is required. We do not link to copyright violations, so there is no way for a reader to verify this content. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject himself and his live-stream is the "reliable source". My archived media is just that, an archive, which fulfills the WP:PUBLISHED definition/policy. Again I'm asking if you can direct me to where exactly it states that an archived copy of a published source cannot violate copyright, because I fail to see that anywhere. Gill is trash (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, I would have slightly different qualms--unless you can make the case that your archive is a reliable source (no offense intended, of course). If that's where we're directing people to find our backup for a stated claim, it should be an RS.  I don't think you did this, but a piece of media on an archive might be edited or altered in some way.  As such, I would oppose the inclusion here.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I follow you Dumuzid, but again I reiterate that I feel like this is following the policies to the letter, and I promise I'm not trying to be difficult, just accurate and specific. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we link to my archive, I'm only providing it as PROOF that the "archive" status of the Published definition is met. Again, the subject himself and his livestream broadcast are the RS in an article about himself, and the "archive" that I provided is required by the definition stated in WP:PUBLISHED - even though it also states the archived media "does not need to be accessible on the internet", so I fail to see why linking to it directly is an issue. Couldn't this be a citation without a direct link? I understand the need for an archive since broadcasts can be ephemeral, but why even include that language about not being accessible on the internet if not to cover things such as this? I have read through WP:COPYVIOEL and fail to see anything addressing this, in fact the only thing I can find that is even close is: "In the case of elections or other one-time events, it may be desirable to replace the original links with links to archived copies when the event is over." - it may be DESIRABLE, but not necessary or required. I emphasized one-time events because I believe live-stream broadcasts that aren't archived on the original channel fit that description, but again it doesn't seem like this exact subject/issue is addressed there. Gill is trash (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, my position would be that while a source need not be accessible on the internet, it must be accessible somewhere. Thus, a book you check out of a library is fine, even if the text is not available online.  My problem is that due to ephemerality, I would not consider the original broadcast a "source," and unless you can make the case that your archive is reliable per WP:RS, then I don't think we can point to that either.  For me, there's no RS that we can use to substantiate the given claim.  Thus for me it's a no, but if consensus is against me, so be it!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, . JBchrch   talk  22:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input on this, and to your point about "it must be accessible somewhere", I feel like I have already proven that to be the case, so hopefully we can move on from that point. Now, when you say: "due to ephemerality, I would not consider the original broadcast a "source," - a "source" as defined in WP:RS seems to cover ephemeral broadcasts when it says "multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources", - broadcast, distributed, OR archived - all three seem to apply here, and applied to the subject when discussing himself, in an article ABOUT himself, and assuming all 5 WP:SELFSOURCE criteria are met, this would qualify under the definition of an acceptable self-published source, even though it is ephemeral. The "piece of work" was the original ephemeral live-stream, the "creator of the work" is the subject of the article, and I'd also argue that he was the "publisher of the work", via the live-streaming platform which in this case was YouTube. Then, it states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Of course, this would normally disqualify the material, but as this is a statement from himself about himself, the relevant policy at WP:SELFSOURCE applies, stating: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met..." I'm skipping the criteria because I feel like I have already demonstrated that this meets all 5 criteria listed, but I'm happy to revisit this if need be. It then also states "These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." Now I would think that a live-streaming platform like twitch or YouTube is essentially a form of social networking site, and visa versa considering that live-streaming is something you can do on all of the social media sites mentioned in the definition, and the use I'm proposing is de minimis, so we are covered there as well. So again, respectfully, I ask how is this NOT a source, per the definition stated at WP:RS? What applicable statute or policy isn't being met ? Gill is trash (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY is the core content policy that applies. This livestream has not been archived by a reputable party. This cherry-picked snippet hosted at Dropbox has all the signs of a copyright violation and is pretty much the opposite of a reputable party. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps obvious that I agree with Cullen328 here, but I'll expand on my thinking: you still haven't resolved my issue insofar as this was not broadcast by a "reputable party" (Twitch and other platforms don't generally fact-check their broadcasts) and your archive, again, no offense intended, is not a reliable source without strong editing and a reputation for accuracy. To me, your argument boils down to "my non-reliable source references the other non-reliable source, so it's okay."  It would, in essence, be the same as saying "my reference for this cite is that I ran into person X on the street and then blogged about what they told me."  It might be interesting, but it's not what I would consider a reliable source for Wikipedia.  And while you're right that this poses issues for streamers, it poses issues for things that happen at in-person live events as well.  Somehow we shall manage, I think!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To, WP:VERIFIABILITY does not say that the content needs to be "archived by a reputable party" - in fact the word "archive" barely exists on that page. What that page says is "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". OK - so what is a reliable source? From WP:SELFSOURCE, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 criteria are met]. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook." That seems to cover what I am contending here - the fact that the media was ephemeral is moot and not addressed in any policy that I can see. So how could it be "verified" if it was ephemeral? Well, I imagine by an archived copy of said content - which, I happen to have readily available for anyone that wants to see it, but as I have stated many times, the language pertaining to "archived media" clearly states it does not need to be accessible via the internet, and I also don't see anything pertaining to copyright. It seems to me like you are trying to apply another set of rules or policies to this when, as far as I can tell from extensive reading of the policies, it DOES NOT APPLY to this particular type of content or information, at least not in the context I'm trying to use it. Since you mentioned it though, the statute about being "archived by a reputable party" comes from the definition of WP:PUBLISHED, but that isn't the full definition - the FULL text states:
 * "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."
 * So, while it may not have been ARCHIVED by a reputable party, it was originally BROADCAST AND DISTRIBUTED by a reputable party, aka the subject of the article in question. And again you bring up the copyright violation issue - I'm going to ask you for what feels like the 10th time, WHERE does it state that the ARCHIVE of the source cannot be a copyright violation ??? I feel like I've already poked holes in that enough and pointed out that the requirement that the archive not be accessible online seems like a ready-made argument for something like this. The content does not need to be linked to directly in the article, it can merely be used as archival evidence of the original source, to satisfy the definition of "published", while still complying with the policy as currently written.
 * To, well perhaps obvious that I disagree with your assessment of my argument. It's not "my non-reliable source references this other non-reliable source, so its okay" - it's "my ARCHIVE of a source proves that the source was indeed PUBLISHED by the subject, and given that it is a comment about himself that meets the 5 criteria for inclusion of self-published sources as sources for THEMSELVES, the information in it is okay to include in an article about the subject, per the wikipedia guidelines". Even if you are going to argue this from the standpoint that the broadcast wasn't a "reputable party", my argument then becomes the statute around self-published content by the subject of an article being used in an article about the subject. It seems to me like the arguments you're making would be valid, if this were not an article about the subject in question, but being that it is, again the WP:SELFSOURCE policy applies. Gill is trash (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we've reached an endpoint here and will have to agree to disagree. As things stand right now, it seems like consensus is against inclusion, but as we all know, consensus can change.  Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well how am I supposed to get a consensus if you're just going to leave the convo with my questions unanswered? Of course I'll never get a consensus if people aren't going to engage with the topic and just say "welp, agree to disagree" - especially when I feel like this is a valid interpretation of policy. No offense intended, as always. Gill is trash (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps other editors may choose to chime in,, but I a have a major problem with the verifiability of this content. WP:V says The cherrypicked Dropbox snippet is not a reliable source and is almost certainly a copyvio. What is clear is that you do not have consensus at this time. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  00:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I never claimed to have a consensus, but your "major problem" is duly noted! Gill is trash (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Re it was originally BROADCAST AND DISTRIBUTED by a reputable party: ok, but do you have any reliable source to verify that? Because your Dropbox montage certainly isn't one. In any case, WP:RS states that Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources: pretty clear that a dropbox montage cannot be used for a BLP-sensitive info like a person's actual name. JBchrch   talk  00:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on what you're asking for? Do you mean do I have the entire stream archived? I'd also like to ask a simpler question if I could - even if this "wasn't broadcast by a reputable party", why don't the rules around WP:SELFSOURCE still apply being that it is an article about the subject himself, and he is providing information about himself? Shouldn't that policy still warrant inclusion, even if the "broadcast by a reputable party" statute doesn't apply? Gill is trash (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I want a source about the fact that he said his name during a livestream. But I want this source to be a reliable source according to WP:RS. Right now, all you have provided is your dropbox video. I'm telling you this is not a "reliable" source to verify the information that LowTierGod provided his government name during a livestream. So please provide a reliable source about that information. An example would be an archive of the livestream on Twitch. If you can't provide that, then you have no reliable source, because your dropbox video is not a reliable source about what it claims to be archiving. JBchrch   talk  01:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, live-stream content does not stay on the platform in perpetuity, which is understandable considering many streamers produce hours of content every day, and maintaining that content forever would be a huge task & cost for any service, and thus the content in question is not currently active on the original platform. That said, according to WP:RS, the "reputable source" statute isn't required for a self-assertion about the subject in an article about themselves, or to put it another way, the subjects IS a reputable source in the context of information about themselves in an article about themselves, and the policy even goes as far as to say that it includes things posted on social media sites, which I think would also cover a live-streaming site which currently are virtually interchangeable with social media platforms. I'll also point out it does NOT say the material has to be currently available or accessible on the social media sites, so per the policy it seems that what you are asking for is above and beyond what is required here. This is not an exceptional claim or anything that anyone would have reason to doubt, it's not about a third party, it's use in this article would be de minimis, so it meets all the criteria outlined in WP:SELFSOURCE, which is a sub-topic of RS. How is this NOT consistent with that policy? Again, I'm not claiming my video as a "source" - my video is an ARCHIVE of the original source which was an ephemeral livestream broadcast, offered here to prove that it was indeed published at one point, but again referring to WP:SELFSOURCE, I don't see why that matters. Gill is trash (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

For me, the wording of WP:BLPPRIVACY is important: "...or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". Note that it says "does not object" and not "did not object". That the subject has allowed those old live streams to disappear and isn't saying the name now suggests to me that he currently objects. I would compare it to someone, say, deleting old tweets with a birth name or date of birth, even if they had once technically been "published". Woodroar (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording is important, so I'll also quote "to them being MADE public" - made, past tense. He has already made them public. Obviously people can delete things off their social media if they choose to, but that doesn't mean the information or record of it isn't still out there. Gill is trash (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't lie, it feels a little odd to sort of bend our normal rules all in the service of including personal information that we're not sure the person in question wants publicized. Dumuzid (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How can anyone make that argument when it is clear that the subject made this statement freely and willingly on his own livestream? And it has ALREADY been made public - if he didn't WANT it publicized, why would he publicize it himself in this way? How can anyone question whether he wanted it public, when he literally made it public himself? It strains credulity. Gill is trash (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the sentence is in the present tense, but there's an auxiliary verb in passive voice ("being made")—or something akin to that. That part of the sentence is confusing and could probably be rephrased. But "does not object" is the important bit, and it most certainly refers to the subject's current attitude towards their name and birthdate being used on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone needs to address the reliability question as this information doesn't seem to come close to passing due weight if the only source that can be cited is this ephemeral, self-authored, and self-published source. ElKevbo (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like a recursive argument to me - the entire WP:SELFSOURCE policy states that a single, self-authored, self-published source can be used for information about themselves in an article about themselves, provided that information meets 5 criteria - which no one has claimed that this doesn't meet. It's not an exceptional claim that anyone would have reason to doubt, it's not about a third party, blah blah blah - I've made this point a number of times already. I would argue that this is exactly the type of thing that policy was intended to cover. It might be another matter if no archive existed of the material, but that isn't the case here. So again I ask, how is this NOT covered under WP:SELFSOURCE? The rules for this type of information are different when it is for the article about the subject in question. Gill is trash (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC - Need for additional ref for published content?
In the Perry Marshall page, the following sentence was recently removed with the commment 'no independent source':

"He wrote a paper detailing the underlying mathematical basis of the 80/20 rule, which was published in the June 2018 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Italian edition."

I should have imagined that the HBR itself is an adequate source for the verifiability of this factual and relevant statement? Or would it be necessary to find another RS which reports the fact that this article was published in the HBR? DaveApter (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The paper itself verifies its own existence. This is a valid use of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY.  Independent sources are only necessary for an article to establish notability, but are not required for these kinds of uses.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But does not verify what it says is true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia statement does not say the paper is true. It says the paper exists and that he wrote it.  The paper itself verifies the Wikipedia statement perfectly. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Without an independent source, it fails the "so what?" test - David Gerard (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliability issue. That's an issue for other discussions.  This board handles whether sources reliably verify what is written in Wikipedia articles.  Discussions about whether some bit of verifiable information is relevant belong elsewhere.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's no independent source, there is no reason to note this. WP:NOTRESUME - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a reliability issue. That's an issue for other discussions.  This board handles whether sources reliably verify what is written in Wikipedia articles.  Discussions about whether some bit of verifiable information is relevant belong elsewhere.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the Reliability board, so purely on reliability, yes, it's highly reliable. We can be confident that the statement is true unless there was an elaborate and pointless hoax, which we generally discount. But as to including it in the article, I wouldn't, as David Gerard says, and since somebody has objected, I'd let it go. Or else start a discussion on the article talk page and get a couple-few people to agree with you.

We list his books. If he was an academic (he's not), it'd not be unusual to have a bulleted list of articles written in academic and other serious journals (usually a selected rather than comprehensive list). If he's got a few more articles like this, make a separate "Publications" section. If not, I'd forget it. Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's probably good advice in general. Selected works sections are useful to give a general overview, and as long as they don't overwhelm the article, are probably okay.  But as you note, this is not really the venue for that discussion.  This board is for discussing whether some source reliably verifies a statement in Wikipedia.  The statement that he wrote said paper, and that it is published as described, is reliably sourced.  Whether such a reliably-sourced, verifiable statement actually is relevant to the article perhaps needs to be discussed, but that's an issue for the article talk page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

https://electionsireland.org/index.cfm reliable?
I am seeing a lot of Irish politician articles sourced to this website. However, it seems to be a self published website by Seán Donnelly who uses it to sell his self published books through Lulu. Should we be using this website?4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are to believe The Irish Times, Donnelly is "the author of one of the bibles of Irish politics, www.electionsireland.org". This is maybe not sufficient evidence yet that he is the kind of "established subject-matter expert" that allows us to make an exception per WP:SELFPUB, but scholars cite him too. –Austronesier (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Blasting News and hoaxes
blastingnews.com is linked 164 times in mainspace, mostly as a reference, for a variety of topics. Recent events have made me question whether it's actually a reliable source, though I'd appreciate feedback on this point.

The site accept submissions from unvetted contributors, but they then have reviewers who give feedback on drafts; the reviewers are supposed to verify that the content is accurate, non-promotional, and well-written. Additionally, they seem to have an additional level of newsroom oversight. They have a clear corrections and labeling policy, and are partnered with a number of anti-fake news organizations (all this from their "editorial" and "about us" pages)

However, this site came to my attention when I found it used as a source in a series of long-lived hoaxes, and its use there does not speak well to its reliability. In particular, much the content from one contributor account, Christian News, was likely a hoax, and in a clear enough way that calls into question the actual quality of the reviewing. To take the worst example I found, their article "Why two percent of all Afghans are now members of a church", which claims that:
 * 2% of Afghans are members of the Christian Universal Life Church, while the article text only talks about Kabul
 * The number of Christians in Kabul in this church that only seems to exist on Facebook, if at all, is about 25 times bigger than the State Department's most recent estimate of the entire Christian community in the whole country.
 * That this makes it the biggest church in Middle Asia, when the Russian Orthodox Church has millions of adherents in the region

What is the appropriate response to this? I can see a few justifiable conclusions:

I emailed the designated corrections email address on Saturday, July 10 with this plus some additional evidence of errors. Their "contact us" page says that they will respond within three business days, though I have yet to recieve a response as of Friday, July 16. If I do, I will put a summary in this thread. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The editorial control simply isn't good enough to ensure reliability, so we should remove all or almost all cases where the site is used as a source.
 * It's appropriate for certain writers who have some sort of journalism qualifications, but not for arbitrary contributors
 * The source's editorial policies are strong, so we should treat this as a fluke


 * To get useful feedback from this page, you need to include the article the source is linked to and the claim it is being used to justify. The article you link does not look to me to be something which would be enough to disqualify Blasting News as a source out of hand, though it does raise concerns.


 * When headlines don't match the text of the article, we go by the text, as inaccurate or over-generalised headlines often creep into even reliable sources. Using the source to justify the claim "2 percent of Afghans are Christian" would clearly be wrong, as that is not the claim the article makes. The correct way to include this claim in the text would be "The Christian Universal Life Church claims to have 70,000 baptised and non-baptised members in Kabul, which would represent 2% of the city's official population."


 * However, this looks very much like an exceptional claim, and would therefore, in my opinion, require a bit more sourcing to merit inclusion. If the church regularly make this claim and it is regularly reported, it might warrant inclusion in some articles, but as you have not said what article it is being used on, it is hard to know. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Having said that, the Christian Universal Life Church looks very much like it is performance art. Christian News being the artist(s). Boynamedsue (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I should probably clarify my purpose in bringing this to RSN. I'm not seriously considering adding this source to any particular article; however, since it is used in a large number of articles, I wanted to get feedback on whether systematic removal would be appropriate. I put it on this noticeboard because this is a central place for people who care about the reliability of sources across Wikipedia. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say, given the dodgy material it publishes, it can only be used for opinions attributed to the author of the piece.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The editorial process makes broad claims, but you're showing they aren't really adhered to. Most NEWSORGs don't need to make a huge fuss on their front page about what a reliable source they totally are either - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)