Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260

• lawandcrime.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Larry Klayman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A significant chunk of content in the article on Larry Klayman relating to Jerome Corsi was sourced lawandcrime.com. This looks like the kind of source I read for fun (big fan of Lawfare and and Opening Arguments) but I'm not convinced it's good enough to be the major sources for significant BLP content. This para especially bothered me:

Klayman also filed, on behalf of Corsi, an amicus curiae brief in the criminal case against Stone, and unsuccessfully sought a hearing in Stone's case to show, Corsi claimed, that Stone was trying to harass Corsi.^[1][2]

What does t'committee think? Other than that adding Klayman, Corsi and Stone to any case is going to boost shares in popcorn? Guy (Help!) 22:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable. I agree with your assessment. Law & Crime (formerly known as LawNewz) has a published masthead and is backed by A&E Networks, a major broadcasting company. Reliable sources, including The Wall Street Journal (RSP entry) and The Hollywood Reporter (RSP entry), see Law & Crime as an online expansion of Court TV (now known as TruTV). Past discussions regard TruTV as a source of entertainment content rather than a source that can be relied on for contentious claims related to living persons. — Newslinger talk 20:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As experienced editors are well aware, while primary or related sources cannot be used to establish Notability, they are quite acceptable for adding relevant information to WP articles. is a claim made at Talk:Howard_Edelstein

The question devolves from use of podcasts and SPS sources for material about the person. My opinion has been that if any question at all is raised, that Wikipedia requires that we stick to reliable sources. Has that rule been changed or removed? Collect (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• While self-published sources are not "automatically allowed", they can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions under WP:ABOUTSELF, even in biographies of living persons. Reliable secondary sources are preferred, of course. — Newslinger talk 22:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Collect, please stop pretending that Self-published Sources and Reliable Sources are mutually exclusive; WP:SPS - which is an actual WP Policy - recognizes reliable self-published sources. Newimpartial (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• (ec)Self published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, in some situations. See WP:SELFSOURCE. Without diffs or the specific claims and sources we can't say much else. Meters (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The case at hand clearly uses the SPS sources as a means of asserting importance to a person where no actual reliable sources do so. The podcast "interviews" show dang little. Collect (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Except that the case at hand also offers RS awards, guest of honor appearances, books and reviews. Except for that, and that the SPS I've noted above 'are' reliable - except for those aspects, you are undoubtedly correct - 'where no actual reliablw sources do so' - such a shiny fresh strawman. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No they are not automatically allowed, in fact they are generally discouraged.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't conflate primary sources with self-published sources or falsely suggest that all primary-sourced content would therefore meet other applicable guidelines including WP:DUE. I have never seen any WP editor suggest that "SPS are automatically allowed in a BLP". SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Howard Edelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BLPSPS places very strict limitations on SPSs for biographical information.

To avoid NOT and POV problems, it's best to work from sources that are independent and reliable, using other sources for details on topics already identified in the better sources.

That said, this noticeboard best addresses the reliability of specific sources for specific content. It would be best to follow that approach. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz:, as I said immediately above, there are two separate issues here. There are SPS, which can be used only in very limited circumstances where the noteworthiness of the contnent and ABOUTSELF are satisfied. Then there are PRIMARY sources, which is a much broader category. This thread began with a sentence about PRIMARY sources and then OP launched into discussion about SPS.

With respect to the article you link above: I listed some RS that are used as references in a current AfD on that article. I didn't link to the specific article content they verify, because I thought the citations at the article will make that clear. I'd greatly appreciate it if you or anyone else would address the use of those sources in that article. That would support the discussion, one way or another, at the AfD. The linked article also contains a limited amount of other content that's cited to other sources, some of them primary but none self-published. They include, e.g. corporate reports that give job titles, etc. At any rate, those are not relevant to the notability discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Howard Edelstein — Newslinger talk 07:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Found this in an article, Hollywood Mask, appears to be a gossip sheet. The assertion it's supporting isn't contentious but I'm wondering if it should be replaced. Article it's being used on is a BLP Asha Rangappa and the specific article being sourced to is here, and it just seems icky to me. The source is used in four articles, all BLPs. valereee (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Celebrity Gossip - sourced to Twitter posts and a "bio" not specified - likely a press release from the company producing her show. Any genuine "reliable source" would not lead off with "Was FBI agent Asha Rangappa never married to anyone or is it just that she has done the 'impossible' by keeping her husband out of the spotlight? Who's the father of her child? These were the questions that raided her Twitter feed-- sometimes, even harassed by 'trolls'" Collect (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, clearly at best a crap source; bad enough that I edit all four BLPs to either remove whatever's being supported or replace the source with something reliable? But since it's only four articles, does that mean we don't need to add it to perennial sources? valereee (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Is LWN.net (formerly Linux Weekly News) a reliable source for Draft:NumWorks? Specifically, is it usable for establishing notability? The staff consists of three people, and they also "purchase a number of articles from freelance authors". The article in question is "The NumWorks graphing calculator". — Newslinger talk 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux — Newslinger talk 02:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I consider LWN.net a generally reliable site, in the sense that the main news stories and news sections written by the staff have editorial oversight and fact checking, aided by independent criticism in the comments. Contributed articles are more of a grey area. I don't doubt that the staff look over the articles for obvious errors, but I don't know how much detailed fact checking is done. For the calculator review, my sense is that with editor approval, it has more weight than a random blog, but less weight than a staff-written review. As a notability source, it might be marginal. In reading the review itself, I didn't see any obvious errors and it was more balanced than a PR release would generate. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone knew if Invicta Magazine was a reliable source, especially with regard to its reviews.

No clear "about" page, which is always a negative, but quality of material looks high, fairly well estabished so I was hoping someone might have some better knowledge beyond what I could dig up. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• RS with inline attribution per RSOPINION

  At the bottom of the page "All content copywrite of Invicta Magazine, 2017". I question their editorial skills when they can't spell "copyright" correctly, but Seems to exercise SOME editorial control

  [Main page] seems to be largely written by a single person (though not all).

  I think the page is appropriate via WP:RSOPINION, but I wouldn't place it in WP:RS for anything other that attributed comments. Buffs (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

All, my take is that the following site is not a reliable source: http://nativeappropriations.com

My rationale: This site is VERY clearly a personal site/blog and seems to have no editorial control/standards other than the whims of the owner. Regardless of the owner's personal credentials, it doesn't meet WP standards for inclusion as a reliable source.

I'd appreciate a second opinion from some neutral parties. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much just a blog. It might be usable for mundane personal details about Adrienne Keene per SELFPUB, but that's about it. GMG^talk 21:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• While personal blogs are generally unreliable, it looks like Native Appropriations is apparently a quite notable blog run by Adrienne Keene, an expert in Native American Studies. Thus, per WP:BLOGS, it's reliable in some cases. What exactly is it being used to support that brought you to RSN, so that we can judge its reliability in this specific instance? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• *EC* Specifically in the article War bonnet, her opinion is being used to support "Due to their historical importance and status, traditional Native Americans now consider the wearing of headdresses without the express permission of tribal leaders to be an affront to their culture and traditions" and "The wearing and displaying of such headdresses, and other "indigenous traditional arts and sacred objects" by those who have not earned them, especially by non-Natives as fashion or costume, is considered offensive by traditional Native peoples."

  The articles cited are and and While these are certainly the views of two individuals, they are both editorials/opinion pieces. I don't disagree that some Native Americans feel that way, but there's no evidence that even a majority (or significant minority) feel that way and should not be portrayed as such.

  Other applications are of a similar nature. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Adrienne Keene is being quoted about Native American opinions on non-Natives wearing Warbonnets and dressing up in Native costumes in groups like Order of the Arrow. She is being cited as a source as to what some Natives think of these actions, in those articles. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment "cited as a source as to what some Natives think". Surely if these are mainstream opinions, we can find something other than a personal blog. The views of this academic are extreme, in my opinion. Corbie's opinion on the subject is that he/she is here to combat "systemic bias" on Wikipedia and categorizing corrections to misleading links as disruptive editing (in this case, the page numbers referenced did not contain supporting information for the material cited/claimed).

I asked for a third-party, unbiased opinion from others so I can better assess the situation and ensure MY biases aren't out of line here. I specifically did not invite Corbie as it was a check on MY opinion, but it's kinda clear I'm being stalked no matter where I post, so I'll just let the chips land where they may unless specifically addressed. Buffs (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that in principle it is acceptable to use the source to support the claims that it is attached to in the article Warbonnet and Order of the Arrow, and would consider the source to be reliable (a Google Scholar search shows that the blog is even quoted and discussed in academic literature). However, it also appears that all of these claims are already supported by multiple other citations––in no scenario in that article is this source the sole supporting citation for a claim. If there is consensus that the other sources are more comprehensive and reliable, it may be prudent to remove this source as a consequence, as particularly Order of the Arrow is bordering WP:CITEKILL territory. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is that many of these cites are of the same variety. I don't think it's at all unfair to state that there is at least some vocal opposition to some aspects of Order of the Arrow, but it's equally unfair to state "The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans.[7][57][53][58]" when it represents a WP:FRINGE opinion of 2-3 people.

• #7 is literally the opinion of TWO people as quoted in an online advocacy piece from a highly biased site and fails WP:RS without qualifications (See above). It also qualifies as a WP:FRINGE opinion (just two people).
• #57 is an opinion piece in a blog that quotes the same article/people of #7. It does not mention "stereotypes" or "racism" and only mentions "appropriation" in regard to the letter to the editor referenced in the #7.
• #58 is Keene's piece and that is addressed above. It is a violation of WP:RS for the aforementioned reasons.
• #53 RELATED CONCERN: What do we call it when someone cites a source for a claim, but the reference doesn't support such a claim? This is Deloria's page 126. I'm not saying that somewhere in an entire book he isn't critical of the Order of the Arrow, however, I don't see such criticism on p126 as referenced. There is nothing about the OA and "stereotypes" or "racism" or "appropriation" and, therefore, doesn't belong here. If I'm missing it, please quote it.

In short, what's being cited isn't supported by the given references as well as WP:RS/WP:SYNTH. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Without delving into the SYNTH cases or analyses of the other sources, I think that the source Native Appropriations, as the blog of a notable academic at a reputable institution, which is itself cited in academic literature, should be considered RS on this issue. I don't see any evidence that these viewpoints are fringe, and the section you quoted from the article makes no claim that a majority or that even a significant portion of the Native American population shares these opinions–it simply states that the Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized. Perhaps a compromise could be reached if the text was changed to something like The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for what its critics describe as engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's so prominent in academic literature (which has editorial oversight), it should be easy to cite that and not her personal blog (which has only her own opinions/no oversight).

I would be TOTALLY fine with replacing this reference with a couple of academic journals + a little rephrasing: Critics of the Order of the Arrow describe some of its actions as engaging in cultural appropriation of Native Americans. As long as it is backed up with the academic literature, I see no problem with it and back this solution 1000%. Buffs (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a minor misunderstanding here: I was citing examples of Native Appropriations being cited in academic literature as evidence that it should be generally considered an RS on matters relating to Native American culture and identity. These citations are not necessarily specifically about The Order of the Arrow. I would support the usage of Native Appropriations as an RS, or at least RSOPINION, in the absence of more formal academic sources on the subject. That having been said, a quick Google Scholar search has returned several academic sources critiquing the Order of the Arrow's use of Native American imagery, and in several cases specifically assessing it as racist and appropriative (, , , possibly more available). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically this. You don't do anybody any good by defending crap sources when you can just cite good sources. GMG^talk 23:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Adrienne Keene is an Ivy League professor, and Native Appropriations is her official site. This is the type of site we make an exception for as it is in no way the "blog" of some random Internet person, but the official publication outlet of an expert commentator in the field. The pages on which Keene is quoted are when an expert, Native American opinion is needed specifically on cultural appropriation. Native Americans traditionally have not had the same access to mainstream publishing outlets as more mainstream communities, and a number of trusted academics and orgs use blogging software for their official sites. Buffs is currently trying to remove Native responses from articles, and this is part of that effort. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This would make it authoritative - meaning her opinions should likely be included if the discussion of native appropriations is brought up in a topic, but not necessarily RS, but definitely RSOPINION. Now as a academic, she's likely not to distort facts, but its still a blog and corroboration would be reasonable to ask for factual content. --Masem (t) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Her blog is utilized for research and quoted often in academia and by news outlets. Here is what Brown has to say about both Dr Keene and her blog. https://vivo.brown.edu/display/akeeneIndigenous girl (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, she is an assistant professor who appears to have only been teaching for a couple years. If you want to cite her opinion, you would be better served taking it from something she's actually published. I don't for a second buy the argument that NatAm opinions on cultural appropriation is so desperately lacking in RS that we really need to resort to citing blogs. GMG^talk 21:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

People often quote her precisely because she's an expert in the field. She has specialized in the field of appropriations from Native cultures since she was a student. Usually when she is used for an inline cite, there are other citations used in addition to hers. Buffs has been going through articles and trying remove her entirely, even though her words are certainly WP:V, and in many cases, for the topics she is weighing in on, WP:RS. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If she's been widely published, then cite where she's been published. If she's been widely cited, then cite where she's been cited. If her blog is used to support content where multiple more reliable sources exist, then it serves no purpose. There are entire journals dedicated to these subjects. Trying to use a blog just comes off as fairly lazy editing. GMG^talk 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles quoting Keene are cited in these, and other, articles, whenever possible. :) But, as stated above, Native Appropriations is her official site, so there are materials quoted from there, as well. With a course load to teach, not everyone is publishing all the time. And racism in mainstream media means that Native voices are not published as often as non-Native ones. We use what we can as citations. Bit by bit, there are more Natives in academia, and getting published in third-party sources, but it's been slow and challenging replacing outdated, inaccurate, non-Native anthro voices with Natives who actually know the subject matter. This is why sometimes we've had to use Native academics official sites. It's not an effort to skirt any rules, it's an effort to make sure coverage is accurate, and WP:RS for the communities in question. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It isn't up to you to replace "non-Native anthro voices with Natives who [by your opinion] actually know the subject matter" or "make sure coverage is accurate [and aligning with your opinions exclusively]." WP:RS is the standard we should use; dissenting opinions are welcome as are those opinions supported by WP:RS. As I've said on your talk page, if we want to change WP:RS standards to account for "systemic racism", then let's have a discussion on it. Until then, we should stick to the guidelines of WP:RS. Buffs (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

<OUTDENT>

• American Indian Culture and Research Journal
• The American Indian Quarterly
• American Indian Law Review
• Journal of American Indian Education
• Studies in American Indian Literatures
• Journal of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association
• Canadian Journal of Native Education
• Canadian Journal of Native Studies
• European Review of Native American Studies
• First People Child & Family Review
• Indigenous Law Journal
• Indigenous Peoples Journal of Law, Culture & Resistance
• Native American and Indigenous Studies Journal
• Native Studies Review GMG^talk 22:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OMG, GMG. A thousand times, yes! Buffs (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, I think it's clear that I'm talking about replacing misinformation, like that on the Boy Scouts sites, with WP:RS sources. Cultural competency is required to evaluate sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No, you're acting like cultural appropriation of NatAm heritage is some esoteric emerging topic that hasn't been covered by native writers in an out of both native and mainstream publications. It's not. It's been absolutely written to death, and there's aboslutley no reason why we should need to cite a blog to cover what is one of the quintessential subjects of indigenous American scholarship. GMG^talk 22:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd value feedback on a source related to the Breitbart News page. The lead paragraph in the WP article is:

Content: "Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart or Breitbart.com) is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right." Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of lies, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.

There's a lot here that seems a bit sketchy by Wikipedia standards, but my question is specifically about the following reference in support of the claim that "The site has published...conspiracy theories".

Source: Trump offers former military intelligence chief Michael Flynn post as national security adviser. This is on the PBS web site, but the ultimate source appears to be the AP, which as far as I can tell is universally agreed to be an RS.

The cited article isn't about Breitbart News or conspiracy theories; in fact, Breitbart News isn't even named. As you'd expect, it's an article about Michael Flynn. The impetus to cite it as a source comes from the following paragraph:

Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, also visited the skyscraper and called Trump “a true friend of Israel.” He specifically cited as another “friend” Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon, whose selection as a top White House adviser has created a backlash among Democrats. Bannon’s news website has peddled conspiracy theories, white nationalism and anti-Semitism.

It seems to me that the connection between this article and Breitbart News is somewhat tenuous. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that Breitbart News is what's meant by "Bannon's news website" and that the AP must certainly have vetted the line "XXX has peddled conspiracy theories..."

Is this a citable source for "Breitbart News publishes conspiracy theories", or does it fall under the category of citations cautioned against by WP:RSCONTEXT: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."

Previous discussion here. Thoughts? NillaGoon (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Breitbart News — Newslinger talk 07:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. NillaGoon's argument is one we have seen many times before: that a mainstream, reputable, and otherwise reliable news source isn't reliable for a certain point because it isn't the central focus of the source. This type of argument has been rejected here time and again. We don't apply WP:RSCONTEXT mechanically in this way. When we look at the actual context, we have to understand how reputable newsrooms work. Journalists and editors of reputable, established newsrooms fact-check each and every statement in their stories, not just the central ones. A statement saying that a fellow media outlet publishes conspiracy theories is not made lightly and would be subject to intense internal and external scrutiny. After being fact-checked by the AP editorial staff, before it was published it then would have had to survive scrutiny by PBS NewsHour, one of the most reputable news organizations in the world. If a false statement of this magnitude were to somehow slip by both the AP and PBS NewsHour then it would become a major scandal and would lead to a public correction by both organizations. The reliability of this bit of the source is further borne out by the fact that a host of other reliable sources have published the same thing. A handful of these sources are listed alongside this one, by such reputable outlets as the LA Times, NBC News, CNN, and Snopes.com. I believe there are many more. R2 (bleep) 18:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. Bannon’s news website has peddled conspiracy theories, white nationalism and anti-Semitism is straightforward, and establishing that that is a default description of the site is worth citing them for even if it's not the main focus of the article. I would not want to rely on only that one source for such a broad claim, but fortunately there are other sources there as well (and since this is in the lead, it's also covered in the article in much more depth using sources like those.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable Pretty much all of the above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - see BBC and ADL as both provide info and may lead to other RS for further corroboration. Whatever RS is/are chosen, MOS advises us how best to handle contentious labels using WP:INTEXT. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I oppose in-text attribution here and do not believe WP:LABEL applies, but those are tangential since they're not the subject of this discussion. R2 (bleep) 18:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not usable I do not question the reliability of the source, but now we're putting a single source for a controversial claim, which is not sufficient for a lede qualifier. Further, the statement from the source could be read multiple ways, and I feel it's a bit of an OR jump to make the conclude the statement. We know that BBN has "news" and has "opinion" and I do not question that some of its opinion columns promote conspiracy theories, but news-wise...it might but we can't be the ultimate deciders of that, and need multple sources. Remember, reliable does not mean that what is published is factual, and things like YESPOV and attribution of claims still apply to RSes. --Masem (t) 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you might be confused about the issue being discussed. No one is proposing using this source in isolation. It's one of several, as mentioned. R2 (bleep) 20:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If there are multiple (and their seem to be), then it appears that it would be better to simply not use this source directly in the lede support, but perhaps later in the body. Using 4 instead of 5 sources to support the point isn't harming the justification of this in the lede. --Masem (t) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please help me understand your position here... Citation overkill issues aside, are you suggesting that of the various reliable sources cited for this content, we should get rid of this one? If so, why? I don't see any explanation from you as to why this particular source is any less reliable than any of the others. In fact it might be more reliable than the others. Are you suggesting we remove it simply because an NillaGoon objects to it? R2 (bleep) 18:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I have to agree with those who are saying omit it. Reliability is not a binary thing. It is a sliding scale. When multiple reliable sources support some bit of content, we should always favor the most reliable ones. This does not mean that the sources we omit need to be deemed UNreliable... just that they are marginally less reliable than others (the ones we do decide to use). In this case, there seems to be pleanty of sources that are better (ie more reliable). So there is no need to use the one in question. It can safely be omitted. This is one of the rationales behind WP:Citation Overkill ... we don’t cite all reliable sources that support a statement, we descriminate and only cite the BEST sources that support it. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What makes this source any less reliable than the others? R2 (bleep) 18:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable: AP is certainly reliable for the statement in question. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Moot. I agree with Masem in that sourcing this claim to a single source is inappropriate, but it's not cited to this single source. feminist (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Putting this here since it could be of interest for RS-interested editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Good find, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. The part in the article that struck a cord with me: "As it turns out, the original prankster editor was a journalist, so he decided to out himself as the original anonymous editor who executed the stunt in an article for the newspaper he worked for—a move that gave him a proper counterreference to use to finally correct the record." It's another reason among several for editors to exercise caution when citing sources, especially those we find to be in agreement with our own position. The higher likelihood of this happening will probably be material applicable to NEWSORG and RECENTISM. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• I concur that it's a problem. It's BEEN a problem in academia for a while too. When something is cited and agrees with preconceptions, many give it a pass without serious review/in-depth analysis. This is a significant problem especially in the humanities fields. It's a problem that Wikipedia is at the very-real beginning steps. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a nice citogenesis-story: Jimmy Lovrien column: Wikipedia, the Mexican army and me Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

And of course we have this: Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way we could develop some sort of doohickey that would alert an editor who was sourcing to a page that linked to wikipedia? It probably would only help in a very small number of cases -- websites that actually cite their sources are pretty rare. valereee (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Onion is known for being a very satire site. But is it reliable? I want to start a discussion. Then we can add it to the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianWikiEditor (talk • contribs)

What I think AdrianWikiEditor means is we need a discussion so we can add The Onion to WP:RSP as Obviously unreliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say it is SO obviously an unreliable satire that we don’t need to list it. The point of the parennial list is to outline consensus on sources that have been discussed REPEATEDLY over the years... and the Onion has not been discussed repeatedly (probably because it is rarely cited). Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see your reasoning. That said, InfoWars is on there and my initial response to anyone even "just asking" why we don't use it is a very close warning shot with a notice that the other barrel is still loaded 'n dat dey'd bes' be gettin' ahnta sumudda topic weh dey woan' be cossin naw maw trubble. The few times I've seen users cite The Onion in earnest, they just plain didn't understand the concept of satire. (Not a language issue, my students in China got that The Onion was supposed to be a joke, the humor just didn't translate).

There's currently 117 citations to TheOnion, though the ones I bothered to look at appear to be "in popular culture" bits. Those could be appropriate citations. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we know The Onion is satire. But, what about XKCD? O3000 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole subreddit for when people fall for The Onion. Including people who should know better. A member of the U.S. House of Representatives is one of them. As its satire draws on the absurdity of the real world, there's no harm in listing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There was also a former FIFA vice president who after being charged with corruption tied to use an Onion article as evidence of an American conspricy. I’m not sure if it needs to be listed but some people don fall for theses.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all above. It's satire, so thus unreliable. SemiHypercube 22:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is saying that it should be considered reliable... the question is whether it should be included in the list at WP:RSP. That list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of any (and every) unreliable source. It is limited to those sources that are constantly being debated. The Onion is not a perennial problem, and so does not fit within the scope of that list. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The 2nd discussion is complete. (The first being found here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221#The_Onion) Can someone please add it to the WP:RSP now. Thanks!AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• We should not start discussions for the sole purpose of adding sources to RSPS. GMG^talk 23:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• The Onion is so obviously non-RS that anyone arguing otherwise would raise serious CIR concerns. Discussion on this subject is a waste of time. I propose a speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• "Man Resolves To Read The Wikipedia Tabs He Already Has Open Before Starting New Ones", "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence", "Hard To Tell If Wikipedia Entry On Dada Has Been Vandalized Or Not" (read Dada if you don't get it), and "I Must Take Issue With The Wikipedia Entry For 'Weird Al' Yankovic", which begins "To whomever or whatever is currently in charge of the free encyclopedia ... I demand that you remove the mask of anonymity and account for the gross oversights to be found on your site ... you are perpetrating a great injustice ... Yes, I think it's still satire. Leviv ich 04:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Everybody knows The Onion is satire. But we should just add it to the list anyway as alot of obviously unreliable sources are there.AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

When people start to try and use it as a source yes.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Like with so much else, context matters. Take the article Wikipedia: "Another example can be found in "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence", a July 2006 front-page article in The Onion,[324]", primary sourced to The Onion. That is not awful, though of course a better cite would be a CNN-article that noticed that The Onion wrote about Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In this example, The Onion is being cited to support the claim that The Onion published that particular article, which is allowed for questionable sources under WP:ABOUTSELF. As a secondary source, The Onion is generally unusable. — Newslinger talk 00:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone familiar with the website www.mamamia.com.au and whether its considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes? An article from the site is being to support contentious content about a living person in Sword and Scale. The content and edits related to it are currently being discussed at WP:BLPN#Sword and Scale and well as at WP:COIN#Sword and Scale, but it would help to know what editis regularly dealing with RSN feel about the quality of the mamamia source. Mamamia description of itself can be found here and it kind of has the feel of a niche site for women's issues which might not indicate a strong policy of internal editorial control. Moreover, the fact that it originated as a blog and describes itself as a "women's media brand" also gives it a WP:BLPSPS sort of feel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, though maybe not for contentious claims about living persons. According to their About page, Mamamia (website) was founded by a magazine editor, and they currently have 80 staff. This is evidence of reliability. It is quite common for women-focused websites to include native advertising, but I don't recall reading sponsored content on Mamamia (of course, I may be wrong). Still, it's a newer publication, and I would prefer better sources for contentious BLP claims wherever possible. WP:DUE weight should be considered, especially if Mamamia is the only publication reporting on such a claim. Articles written by contributors are not reliable: some of the articles on Mamamia are written by "contributors", and these should be avoided, especially for BLPs. feminist (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Looking at the linked article, the main problem I see with it is that there is no way for us to know whether Hannah Blackiston is a staff journalist at Mamamia: the website provides little information about this writer on her page. In this case I'd lean towards unreliability, and avoid relying on this particular article for contentious BLP claims. feminist (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Do catalogues such as the Barefoot Catalogue of revenue stamps count as a primary source? I'm currently reviewing Revenue stamps of the United Kingdom for GA which heavily relies on this source. The source seems to be well thought of, but it is always a concern when an article relies on a single source. SpinningSpark 14:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

pretty much a secondary source, as they are not the publishers of the stamps. If course it depdends on what it is being used as a source for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Good source - it did not print the stamps, it is written by "experts in the field" and there are zero "contentious claims" made in those catalogues. The Seaby (now Spinks) works on coins are in the same category, as well as the Robson Lowe works on stamps. Collect (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• The benchmark for stamps would be Gibbons, of course (trivia fans: this is why the pin-to-stamp collector in Pratchett's Going Postal is called Stanley Howler), I don't think this publisher is as reliable, but it seems a perfectly decent source as currently used. Guy (Help!) 05:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This now seems to be resolved. I'm unwatching the page, please ping me if there are any more responses. SpinningSpark 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This website is used extensively on en WP on topics related to Nazi Germany, but is extremely dubious in terms of WP:RS. I am looking to have it blacklisted or edit filtered, and it has been suggested that I should get a community consensus on its reliability before doing so. Basically, it is a self-published website and forum operated by what can only be described as Axis "enthusiasts", none of whom are identified via the home page, except Andreas Altenburger who is otherwise unidentified. Without an editorial board, or identified expert authors, it has no place being used as a source on WP, and I don't think it can be considered reliable. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist: this has the appearance of being pulled from a primary-source database of some kind; or possibly user-generated. Does not meet WP:RS requirements for independence, secondary nature, and fact-checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• feldgrau.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This website is used extensively on en WP on topics related to Nazi Germany, but is extremely dubious in terms of WP:RS. I am looking to have it blacklisted or edit filtered, and it has been suggested that I should get a community consensus on its reliability before doing so. Basically, it is a self-published website and forum operated by what can only be described as Axis "enthusiasts", none of whom are identified via the home page. Without an editorial board, or identified expert authors, it has no place being used as a source on WP, and I don't think it can be considered reliable. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This website along with the two in the preceding sections are blocked in deWikipedia by their spam blacklist for - apparently - reliability and POV concerns per de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-blacklist/Archiv. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist: user-generated content with zero editorial oversight and fact-checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• axishistory.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This website is used extensively on en WP on topics related to Nazi Germany, but is extremely dubious in terms of WP:RS. I am looking to have it blacklisted or edit filtered, and it has been suggested that I should get a community consensus on its reliability before doing so. Basically, it is a self-published website and forum operated by what can only be described as Axis "enthusiasts", none of whom are identified on via the home page. Without an editorial board, or identified expert authors, it has no place being used as a source on WP, and I don't think it can be considered reliable. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Seriously, we're using this as a source? 1338 links to it, although those are not all articles of course. At Waldemar Schön we use this forum discussion. At Children in the Holocaust we use this forum discussion. It should be blacklisted. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I (and others) have been periodically culling them, but they seem to crop back up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly we shouldn't be using it as a source in articles - while there is some stuff on the associated forums that may be of aid in talk page discussions (i.e. for finding reliable sources), it should be noted that some contributors to the forums have a nasty habit of posting verbatim copyvio extracts from copyrighted books.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist: user-generated content with no apparent editorial oversight and fact-checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, what we are looking at here is whether these websites are reliable, so that a separate request can be made on the spam-blacklist page if they are determined to be non-RS. It is my understanding that the decision to blacklist will not be made here, although I suppose we could IAR, I think the process is done elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sure, the discussion here is not binding, but that would be my recommendation based on lack of reliability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not even sure if this is really the right place.

At this time a lot of blatant propaganda and misinformation is coming from both nations news media. As such I think (for the duration) we should have a moratorium on using Indian Pakistani media for statements of fact. At best (and I am not even sure I support that) any claim made by the media of those two nations should be caveated or attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: A similar article can be created for the current India and Pakistan situation on the lines of these articles:

• Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict
• Media coverage of the Iraq War
• Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War
• Media coverage of North Korea

It should be done now if possible if such an article doesn't already exist. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really the point I was making. The issue (if you look at the article on the conflict 2019 India–Pakistan standoff is the over use of clearly biased sources that are pushing nationalist agendas.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I am broadening/focusing your point so the debate can become more productive. This is my only input for this. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The manner in which the media in either country are reporting the situation is also relevant to the story: so yes, I'd agree that the substance of the article needs to be based on sources from outside either country, but using in-text attribution for the sources from each country would add to the article. If there's enough substantive coverage of misleading media coverage, a separate article wouldn't be a bad idea, either. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem (as I see it) is a "he said, he said situation" (which the article suffers from now, to a degree). Added to this is the desire for a live news feed we we just have a ton of recentism based upon very biased reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde had written "If there's enough substantive coverage of misleading media coverage, a separate article wouldn't be a bad idea, either." Well, I went ahead and created an article - Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. (Lots more information and expansion is needed of course). But the structure of the article addresses certain issues raised in these "this" section too. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Previously notified by DBigXray: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics — Newslinger talk 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, Talk:2019 India–Pakistan standoff — Newslinger talk 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Completely agree. Even the ones though reliable like NDTV, WION (both Indian) were spewing wrongful content. I am not sure on Dawn (Pakistani) but couldn't rely on that one as well. Had to rely on Western media to give un-biased news Sherenk1 (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that both Pakistani and Indian newspapers report facts non-objectively, while Western newspapers typically attribute reports to the source they came from. So in cases of dispute well known sources such New York Times, BBC News etc are better sources.Bless sins (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Is an online version of Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable or unreliable source? --Macropedia (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source of information. As such, most of its information should come from reliable secondary sources. Encyclopedia Britannica, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary source. It's generally considered reliable, and ok to use it some, but we should strive to focus on secondary sources instead. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you were to read WP:RS carefully, you wouldn't need to ask these questions - they're all discussed in the document. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There are several problems with using tertiary sources, such as EB, since they do not provide sources, it is difficult to question statements that are incorrect, where ambiguity exists tertiary sources tend to come down on one side without acknowledging other interpretations, and secondary sources, which cite their sources, are more useful for readers who want to go beyond what is found in Wikipedia articles. Also, in my experience, I have seen frequent cases of cherry-picking from EB where no reliable sources could be found. TFD (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it’s a RS, depending on the context. My impression is that it has a good reputation, long history, editorial norms, retractions when needed, etcetera, but does not do attribution and historically tagged as POV and biased towards Britain. The sections would seem to vary between primary,secondary, and tertiary ... I think usually secondary in nature, but again it depends on the specific case. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Generally the EB is a reliable tertiary source, but specifically, it§ can sometimes be less reliable than up to date secondary sources. In other words, if more reliable sources contradict something in the EB, go with the more reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a big differences between some entries from older editions, written by leading specialists on the topic, and newer entries written by staffers with no specialized expertise. An encyclopedic entry written by an expert is both a tertiary and a secondary source, while entries written by non-specialists are purely tertiary. Eperoton (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the Southern Poverty Law Center really a reliable source? The SPLC called Maajid Nawaz, who is not an anti-Muslim extremist, an anti-Muslim extremist in their "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", despite the fact that he is a Muslim himself. Nawaz also won a lawsuit against the SPLC for the false claim that he is an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" and they had to publicly apologize because of the error. Also, The SPLC placed a conservative Christian advocacy group called the Family Research Council (FRC) on its "hate map" in 2010 because the FRC oppose same-sex marriage and abortion and as a result of this, a gunman walked into the FRC headquarters two years later and said he wanted to "kill as many as possible" because he saw them on the SPLC's hate map. That's right, the SPLC indirectly caused a shooting because they didn't agree with an advocacy group because of conflicting political views. Lastly, they have smeared many other people they have disagreed with such as Ben Carson and Charles Murray. Source: X-Editor (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

They are an advocacy group as well as being biased and opinionated, but generally fit WP:RSOPINION. That is can be used but should be attributed to them. WP:RSP has a decent write up on them and their history on this board. PackMecEng (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: If the SPLC can only be used as a source for opinion when it comes to hate groups, then why does the Gab (social network) article use the SPLC source against gab as a source for the website's active user base when it cannot be used as fact and only as an opinion when it comes to them reporting on hate groups? X-Editor (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with the Gab (social network) page but looking it over every time they are used it is not in Wikipedia's voice. It is "The Southern Poverty Law Center characterized" or "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported" which is proper attribution. PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: In the infobox of the Gab article, it says there are 19,526 estimated monthly active users, which it gets from the SPLC source, which got those numbers from Storyful. However, Gab said in a January 2019 SEC filing that it has 200,000 active users and Gab has also said that the SPLC's numbers, which they got from Storyful, are wrong. X-Editor (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The body of the article explains where that info came from, attributing the sources there. If I had to guess why the SEC data is not use it is because that is generally self reported. Though the link you gave does not work so I cannot really check. I will say our article is a little misleading giving the active user number and comparing it to the claimed 850k total user number which can give an incorrect impression. PackMecEng (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Here's the SEC filing, I don't know why the first link is a dead one:https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000114420419003068/tv511217_partiiandiii.htm Also, if you think the Gab article is misleading, then fix the article so it is less misleading. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

SPLC does good research and many RS report that research. I don't know about the specific piece of data you are asking about. I suggest chasing down the real source the info comes from. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I got the info from this source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1771f5a71b62 X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Note the section that piece is in — "Opinion." Also note that the author is Marc Thiessen, a well-known partisan conservative who wrote speeches for George W. Bush. While we may consider his opinion relevant for inclusion, it is citable as nothing more than another (quite partisan) opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Well if that's the case, then I guess there was no reason bringing up those points in the first place. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC's research into hate groups is widely considered authoritative in reliable sources. Like all reliable sources, they have occasionally made mistakes. What we look for is, what happens when a mistake is made? In the SPLC's case, they have generally admitted the error and corrected it publicly. You misstate the Nawaz case — he did not "win" the lawsuit because the SPLC settled the case before trial, apologizing to Nawaz and publicly retracting the offending statement. The Family Research Council is, indeed, a hate group; terrorism is certainly never an acceptable response to hatred, but your suggestion that the SPLC is somehow "responsible" for the attack is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, considered reliable and authoritative. The OP is not really asking a question but rather making a lot of opinionated POV claims. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Sorry if I am POV pushing. After hearing arguments from others, I have determined that the SPLC is reliable source. X-Editor (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• The SPLC is reliable for their own opinion which should only be taken from what they say explicitly (their website is confusing, but e.g. maps are useful and easy to understand). Their classifications are widely disputed and it is one of the worst opposition research sources listed at WP:RSP. According to their own financial information, they accumulate hundreds of millions of dollars so they can prepare for lawsuits which they receive by their political opponents who have been slandered and defamed by the SPLC. While the SPLC has inspired an act of terrorism, I would ignore that as the New York Times have inspired 1,000,000+ murders of civilians. I recommend reading this and this before citing some BS from this hot garbage advocacy organization for factual information in an article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• When the SPLC places a group into one of its hate categories, that should be treated as RSOPINION, though they should be considered an authorative voice that is appropriate to include their opinion for on such pages with inline attribution. SPLC has also done other work not specifically calling out any group under any label, but broader examination (for example, a few years ago, the number and states of Confederate statues in the South US), and such reports can be considered as RS, as they show the appropriate diligence and fact-checkng and editorial oversight. --Masem (t) 15:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable, though consider WP:DUE. I broadly agree with Wumbolo and Masem. SPLC's classifications of living people can be relevant, but only if similar observations have been made by other reliable sources. In cases such as Maajid Nawaz, where the SPLC smear classification was widely disputed, including the SPLC classification would constitute undue weight. feminist (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is only a food-for-thought exercise. Today, SPLC released a report stating the number of groups that advocate hate has grown by 8%. SPLC report, USA Today. Now, the problem is here is that this report is based on what groups the SPLC themselves have deemed promoting hate, rather than any other tracker. This is a case where we know there's some skewing of the data due to how SLPC works and their bias, which is going to contain more false positives. As such, while this report certainly can be used, it should not be treated as uncontested fact, but as something with attribution "According the SPLC, the number of hate groups..." --Masem (t) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Or perhaps something like "The number of groups that advocate hate, as designated by SPLC, has grown by 8%." feminist (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Your comment is objectively false. SPLC is NOT reliable. SPLC lost a very large defamation lawsuit, paying out over $3m for falsely labeling another advocacy group as a racist hate group. "Southern Poverty Law Center Settles Lawsuit After Falsely Labeling 'Extremist' Organization". "Southern Poverty Law Center Pays $3.4M to Resolve Defamation Case". "SPLC statement regarding Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation". The Southern Poverty Law Center argued that its designations of "racism" and "hate groups" were opinions, not assertions of fact, but the court expressly rejected this. The court expressly ruled that labeling someone racist or a hate group is not an opinion, it's an assertion of fact, and thus subject to defamation. There are another 60 defamation lawsuits starting to make their way through the court system against the organization, and another 200 in preparation, all alleging defamation. "'About 60 Organizations' Are Considering a Lawsuit Against the SPLC Following $3M Nawaz Settlement". "Update on the 60 Separate Defamation Lawsuits Against the SPLC Under Consideration". The Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and factually incorrect source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• It's worth noting that for Maajid Nawaz, the SPLC issued a retraction before the case went to trial, and apparently before it even went to court at all. This wasn't a lawsuit, this was the threat of a lawsuit, and the SPLC paid as part of a settlement, not as damages or anything. While this mistake was hardly commendable, retractions are exactly the kind of behavior we want to see from reliable sources which make a mistake. Not great, but very far from the death-blow its detractors make it out to be.

While there is an all-you-can eat buffet of accusations and conspiracy theories that the SPLC is a financial racket, so what? When did we start caring about WP:FRINGE nonsense like that? Neither being well-funded, nor being an advocacy organization, make a source any less reliable. They are still experts for the subject of their advocacy. As I've said elsewhere a bunch of times, we do not expect doctors to be "impartial" when discussing cancer, or government agencies to be "impartial" when discussing crime, but for some reason this specific organization is treated as a special case outside of normal standards. Expecting sources to be neutral when discussing this kind of bigotry is false neutrality. As an encyclopedia, we should use direct language to describe these things, and if that means saying "the SPLC has labeled this group a hate group" so be it. Fussing about exactly how many independent sources cover it in exactly how much weight it has... it starts to look like we're trying to find an excuse to downplay important information just because it makes some people uncomfortable. Why are we making that the reader's problem? Grayfell (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

your comment is false. There was a lawsuit. There was even a court ruling. SPLC filed a motion to dismiss arguing that its designations were opinions. The court rejected that motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked for edit warring, so will not be able to respond here. Perhaps they will take the time to more carefully read the sources they have been posting. If there was a court ruling, I haven't seen any source. Grayfell (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• "considering" is not "starting to make their way through the court system", at least not in this universe. Oh, and these 60 different butthurt organizations were "considering" back in August: are they still thinking? And what's your source for "another 200 in preparation", since I don't see that anywhere in the stories -- from Pajamas Media, oh, quite the reliable source there -- that you link to? So, apparently, you're unclear on the meaning of "objectively". --Calton | Talk 09:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes it's reilable We've been over this so many times. Racists don't like the SPLC because it calls out racists without dissembling. That doesn't make it unreliable. It makes it honest. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I"m sorry, but is this really WP:AGF? Dismissing the ideas of anyone who disagrees with you as "they're just racists" is just as biased as what you're claiming they are. Buffs (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• AGF is about people, not about sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, generally not a good RS reputation in the ‘hate group’ context being asked about. There was some embarrassing failures and backing away, and this just isn’t their area of long expertise. Something from them might be noted as an event, but any product would need extra scrutiny. In general they’re an advocacy group so might be taken as a WP:BIASED source, and have prominence in some topics so would be suitable RS in other areas for a POV statement and a reasonable but effort (but not great) on matters of fact — the bias is basically expressed in word choices and selection of approach or topics, but their fact-checking seems limited and I haven’t seen any good practice retractions printed where they were wrong. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exercise caution - Marc A. Thiessen, a columnist for WaPo, wrote this piece. Also of interesting note is Britannica's article by Kathleen Brown wherein it states: "In addition it has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising, of wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations, and of promoting a left-wing “politically correct” agenda under the guise of civil rights." I linked to the articles for reference. Oh, and there's also an interesting perspective in the Politico article. There are quite a few 3rd party sources that support a cautious approach. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is the most widely cited authority on hate crime in the US. The issue is nott hat SPLC is unreliable, but that the Republican Party have embraced bigotry to such an extent that criticism of bigotry is now seen as political bias against them. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Citing the authority of a right-wing speechwriter who famously defended torturing people is... well, not convincing. Of course Marc Theissen opposes a civil rights group - he spent years working for white supremacist senator Jesse Helms and then publicly argued that waterboarding people to the point of drowning is just peachy. He hates civil rights so obviously he hates the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I am here to discuss RS, and I'm not the least bit interested in anyone's political views. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Then why are you bringing up Marc Theissen? He's a partisan columnist and thus his columns are a reliable source for nothing more than his own opinion. If you're going to cite his opinion as if it matters, you'd better be prepared to discuss why he might hold that opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

And the other columnists in WaPo aren't partisan? Where are the RS that back-up what you're saying? You might want to take a look at this discussion and weigh-in. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we can comfortably say that if they work for a media outlet, they have strong POVs. Which is why we should make sure we avoid editorials, attribute claims and endeavor to find non-journalistic sources, like the SPLC for statements Wikipedia makes whenever possible. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the low-opinion of a columnist whose politics are opposite an organization, should not be given much WP:DUE weight in assessing the quality of a source. Of course Theissen doesn't like the SPLC. Of course we, at Wikipedia, should consider ourselves free to disregard him entirely. When Wikipedia started becoming a news aggregator is when Wikipedia began to fail being an encyclopedia.Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

WP is still an encyclopedia, but it still can serve some function as a news aggregator, as long as we are sticking to fundamental facts, and avoid all the talking head analysis and opinion that doesn't have the longevity to know if it surpasses RECENTISM. If there's enough discussion about a group /individual being a hate group beyond the SPLC (and likely referencing the SPLC), it can be included, but otherwise the SPLC's stance, without any other sources referring to it or collaborating it, should be kept out. --Masem (t) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is a primary source and WP:NOR policy is quite clear about how we are supposed to use them. WP:PRIMARY: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. In my comment above I said Exercise caution whereas our policy reads "but only with care" - same difference. The responses following my contribution attempt to discredit a journalist over political differences, despite their position being corroborated by multiple other RS. Each case should be analysed on its merits and corroborating sources and not taken as blanket acceptance. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to correct an error here. The SPLC is not a "primary source". Primary sources are things like court transcripts, raw scientific or technical data, etc., which require some degree of expert interpretation. The SPLC's products are secondary sources—they analyze, evaluate, and interpret available information on hate groups and bigotry. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, when the SPLC discusses the theology and history of the Nation of Islam or the rhetoric of the living person Louis Farakhan, , it is most certainly not a primary source for the Nation of Islam (NOI) or Louis Farakhan articles -- the primary source is the historical documents, the statements of the NOI, or the statements of Louis Farrakhan, the SPLC is a secondary source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You might want to rethink your correction. According to our PAGs: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Litigators and investigators are part of what comprises SPLC - see the WaPo article "Is The Southern Poverty Law Center Judging Hate Fairly?" The original research faction of that organization is included in the article. They do the research and collect the material they use to litigate and make their lists. They are not unlike a news source doing investigative reporting in that regard - but they take it further and litigate so yes, they are considered primary. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Every person who writes about something would then be primary. What lawsuit on the Nation of Islam or Louis Farakhan are you referring to, and what research are you claiming was used in that lawsuit or are you just making up both the lawsuit and that the research was used. And if it was used in the lawsuit did the trier of fact then decide SPLC, you're right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

SPLC's assessment of a group/person (whether it is contested or not) is definitely secondary w.r.t. to that group. SPLC researches the tenets of the group , what the group has done, and makes a conclusion. Transformative, and thus secondary. SPLC would be primary for discussing anything directly related to the SPLC's organization. --Masem (t) 19:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Masem - NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. How is that different from what SPLC does? What they do is investigate a group or a person, and publish their analysis based on what the group/person says, how they act, what clubs they attend, what they publish, etc. Is it not an analysis of their own research and their opinion? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Read that again, specifically "primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author"; if the SPLC assesses a group as a hate group, that statement is a primary one in context of talking about the SPLC, but it is secondary in context of the group. The primary/secondary/tertiary distinction varies based on the context, so a work can be both primary and secondary at the same time, determined by the context of its use. --Masem (t) 19:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

And that explains why I'm primarily secondary. 🤔 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fully reliable The only people who find it unreliable are those for whom their research exposes as bigots. They have all of the hallmarks of a reliable source otherwise. --Jayron32 14:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Given that SPLC has had to redact some of its classifications, SPLC cannot be considered 100%. Where they aren't categorizing groups, their work is generally fine as an RS, when they categorize groups or people, that becomes RSOPINION and must be attributed, but they are a recognized expert in such, and not excluded when there is discussion of a group or person considered as a hate group by other sources. --Masem (t) 14:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no reliable source that doesn't make mistakes. The question is how they respond to mistake making. The SPLC has generally owned their mistakes and made corrections where evidence is clear, from other sources, that their initial research was in error. --Jayron32 15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Well they owned their mistakes after they got sued. Repeatedly. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Factually false. There was no lawsuit - only the *threat* of one, aka a demand letter, after which the SPLC reviewed their work, acknowledged fault and settled. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Well, let's not oversimplify things. SPLC published their list in 2016 to fairly widespread public outcry, and then eventually edited their statement the next year. Nawaz basically started crowd funding his legal representation, and after retaining counsel the SLPC eventually retracted the statement, issued an apology, and agreed to pay more than three million dollars two years after the fact before an imminent lawsuit landed. GMG^talk 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        • And even with that, they are still applying labels which are inherently subjective and thus affected by their known bias. WP does not factually call groups or people by labels without attribution, so SPLC's classifications still must be taken as RSOPINION. Authoritative, absolutely, but not 100% reliable. --Masem (t) 15:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• The SLPC is reliable the majority of the time and in most cases it won't be difficult to find other sources corroborating their classification. Because they get it right the majority of the time, the majority of people who vehemently oppose them tend to do so primarily for ideological reasons. Having said that, the SPLC is not infallible and has made some very high profile mistakes. Perhaps most notable is their disaster with labeling Maajid Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist, for which they paid out nearly four million dollars and issued a public apology. In that case the SPLC was not only rebuffed by Nawaz but also by a number of high profile media outlets. So if you do find a case of SPLC v. the world, then you should tread lightly. In cases where the SPLC is only the most unequivocal voice among a variety of sources that more or less agree with them, then they are perfectly fine the vast majority of the time. GMG^talk 14:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable - SPLC is a widely recognized, reliable authority, and they cite references for their work to boot. Our own article describes them as "the organization most widely associated with tracking hate groups in the United States", and "the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups [...] and extremists have often been described as authoritative". They skew left only because political discourse has skewed so far to the right. That being said, we do normally cite the SPLC's conclusions as that organization's words, not facts in Wikipedia's voice, but that is a long way off from being unreliable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable* *The same as multiple SPLC discussions previously, which are listed at perennial sources, we examine each statement and use in context because contextmatters. Issues of due and balance are other considerations, involving surveys of multiple RS, just because an RS exists does not mean any particular use is appropriate - so bring an article statement, bring the SPLC source, and bring other relevant RS, for any fruitful discussion. (Just to correct the record, although I am sure it is already in the prior discussions, the Nawaz settlement offer did come before the lawsuit was filed and the retraction came before that. And the settlement money was to be used: "to fund work fighting anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamist extremism." Moreover, the proposed suit and settlement themselves were criticized as anti-free speech or free press . So, YMMV.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not to be trusted about anything outside the US. Their very foolish characterisation of Maajid Nawaz, active in Britain, shows this (since withdrawn). A Trump-like level of inaccuracy about the world outside US borders. No opinion on how accurate they are on inside-US matters. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable - Cited in academic and reliable media, often described as authoritative, retracts errors – what’s not to like? I suppose you can call them an advocacy group. But, they’re not advocating for a particular group. Basically, they’re advocating for anyone’s rights as anyone can be a victim of some hate group. If they’re the only source referring to a group as a hate group, attribute inline. O3000 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable: in addition to being an advocacy group, SPLC is a full-fledged media company with a known reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Only reliable within context They have often labeled individuals/organizations with whom they disagree politically as racist or "anti-<put your cause here>" categorizing them just as problematic as the KKK. There have been lawsuits on the matter. I see nothing wrong with including their opinion "The SPLC has labeled XYZ as a hate group/racist", but not "XYZ is a hate group/racist." They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes Buffs (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exercise caution & include context I agree with Buffs that anytime the SPLC is sourced regarding their "hate list" with an established political (read: not the KKK...) organization with whom they have political disagreements with, there has to be a disclaimer that it is really nothing more than an opinion piece. Please remember that the SPLC operates a functioning political action committee and is unabashedly political. That alone warrants context whenever they are used as a supposedly WP:RS. Darryl.jensen (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable. Per GMG. I seriously could not better articulated my thoughts on this matter. The whole Maajid Nawaz-thing blew up in their face, but many things we consider WP:RS get things wrong. We shouldn't have a higher standard just for them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Medium blogs are not RS

This is a blog, my own general practice is to almost never use them, esp. since I don't read them. On the other hand, the removing editor left in place several sources on the same page which are blogs, leaving one with the impression that blogs in themselves are not objectionable.

The text is Bob Pitt, Antisemitism, the Brick Lane mural and the stitch-up of Jeremy Corbyn Medium 31 May 2018·

Pitt was a researcher for former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, so he definitely knows the insides of British politics. He edited the website Islamophobia Watch for a full decade, from 2005 to 2015. His work on the intricacies of infra-part factional fights (Bob Pitt, The Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy,)has been cited as insightful in Smith Evan, Worley Matthew (eds.),Against the grain: The British far left from 1956, Oxford University Press, 2014 978-1-847-79923-4 p.16

The Jeremy Corbyn page is replete with extensive attack sections on his putative attitudes to Israel and Jews written up by, yes, mainstream journos, who however merely jot down, hour by hour, who said what about whom. It needs some intelligent analysis and Pitt's article is just that: as a researcher he looked into the details of a muralists' background, accused of anti-Semitism, and confirmed that the evidence suggests his mural was (as Corbyn himself later admitted) was anti-Semitic. Pitt has a record of defending Jewish leftists who have been harshly treated for their views on Israel, and here, he challenges 'leftists' critical of Israel for defending what his research suggests is anti-Semitic. It is a fine piece of investigative work, and just happens to be printed on his blog at Medium. I think reading it will indicate this is not blogger's attitudinizing, but useful factual background research and therefore acceptable.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The removing editor, myself, spotted one blog and removed it. If others are there - they should be removed as well. WP:BLPSPS is quite clear on this. Being associated with Livingstone (Ken Livingstone to quit Labour amid anti-Semitism row, BBC, May 2018) rather indicates this is an inappropriate source for this subject matter - even if BLPSPS wasn't involved.Icewhiz (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Pitt is usable for what he says about the imagery behind a mural,-this is not a BLP issue therefore- as that is clarified by the fact the muralist explained his work on a website by a conspiracy theorist, who mentions Jews as part of a global conspiracy. This is crazy. Here is a leftwing researcher challenging leftist perceptions denying anti-Semitism, and providing precisely the documentary material which the rightwing groups failed to come up with to nail down that accusation. It's a leftie crediting the rightists as being correct. And saying that Bob Pitt is not RS because he worked for someone who is accused of anti-Semitism is execrable smearing by association (aside from the fact that any critic of Israel is (like Livingstone), in some quarters, anti-Semitic).Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems Livingstone waa suspended from Labour over comments relating to the 1930s. As for Pitt - I removed it since it is a SPS that was used on a BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you on several pages not to repeat your position without making any new reply. It just makes threads unreadable. So let's drop it and ask for independent neutral outside editors with no horse in the race to evaluate what is, I will admit, possibly borderline. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Icewhiz: Noticeboard stalker - I haven't read the above discussion, so I don't know what this is about, but if you would like an independent neutral outside editor I can try to help. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not asking for mediation. I am seeking neutral advice on a borderline issue re RS. My approach is to read for quality of analysis in sources, rather than to cleave to punctilious policy abstractions. I don't trust newspapers, that are written to a deadline, and tend to give leeway to anything, blog or otherwise, that exhibits signs of intelligent review of an issue. In this sense, with material like the text I asked about, its acceptability is within the logic of WP:IAR, since in this case, the strict rule re blogs etc., objectively favours newspaper reportage with its limited attention span, over diligently researched articles featured in respectable blogs. Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You may dislike wikipedia's position on the precedence of newspaper reporting over blogs, but WP:RS is clear:

"Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs"

This contributor content falls under the definition of user-generated content and should not be used in the article. SWL36 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't dislike wiki policy's preference for mainstream newspaper content over blogs. To the contrary I follow that rule. But we do recognize such facts as WP:Systemic bias, have room for WP:IAR, and, with regard to the wording of policy, we should not that when it states :

websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable

Boards such as this evaluate claims for or against RS use taking that 'generally' as indicative of a principle which is not iron-or hide-bound. It leaves a margin for an approving evaluation which, I think, in this case, would take the measure of the quality of the piece under consideration.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

SPS (even blogs on s=any service) are allowed if they are by a recognised expert in the field, who is Mr Pitt?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I thought that I'd argued this above in writing:

Pitt was a researcher for former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, so he definitely knows the insides of British politics. He edited the website Islamophobia Watch for a full decade, from 2005 to 2015. His work on the intricacies of infra-part factional fights (Bob Pitt, The Rise and Fall of Gerry Healy, 1994 )has been cited as insightful in Smith Evan, Worley Matthew (eds.), Against the grain: The British far left from 1956, Oxford University Press, 2014 978-1-847-79923-4 p.16

If a history of the British Far Left published by OUP cites Pitt's monograph on Gerry Healy for details and commends it as a useful source, I think that suggests we should consider him here.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

SPSes (when there is widely published material) are generally avoided for all topics. For WP:BLPs specifically, SPSes are prohibited entirely (unless written by the BLP subject) - see WP:BLPSPS. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A small point. Policy indications are there for one reason, to ensure that Wikipedia aims restlessly to secure encyclopedic coverage by the best available sources. Most people don't have an academic background of the kind which tells one by instinct how to select and use sources. So we give them rules-of-thumb, many quite strict. But we also then provide boards here so that blind flagwaving of a given policy voice does not lend itself to POV abuse. When you see generally that word is there for a purpose. It means, 'if in doubt' seek a consensus and external input, because that is what must decide for inclusion or exclusion.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Unusable. WP:BLPSPS is very clear on this: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person." If this article were published in a reliable secondary source, which exercises editorial control over Pitt, then it would probably be usable. But that's another matter. feminist (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bold text Please assist soon! Over the past several years I have added very important information to the important article titled: OPERATION TAYLOR COMMON(OTC). Every time I complete my additional information in the existing article I wait a few days. Every time I check the important, accurate information I've contributed, someone or something has erased everything I wrote. This is totally unacceptable! That's why I need your help. I am an extremely reliable source. I was intimately involved in OTC. I was a Marine Platoon Sergeant during OTC (later Platoon Commander). My platoon and I fought many battles during OTC. I had men killed or badly wounded during OTC. Our battalion suffered many casualties. Some were killed. One example was Marine Lt John Moore from Camp Lejeune, NC. John was killed a few days before Christmas 1968. The first thing I saw missing from the original article was our unit: 2nd Battalion, !st Marines. The U.S. and our allies, and enemy units are listed under a table of organization. Each time I added our organization, it is erased; each and every time. Then I write a few paragraphs that I believe are as pertinent as any of the other original write ups. This is erased every time! If I didn't know better I believe someone is jealous. They don't want our Marine units listed. Perhaps a high ranking Marine general officer believes my information is inaccurate. If true, he is mistaken. His rank does NOT give him the right to delete timely and accurate, historical information. Yes, I would be glad to meet him face to face. Whomever (whatever) is causing all of my repeated information to be deleted is totally disrespectful! "My" Marines died in this battle. "My" Marines were mangled in this battle. In the end, all participates were victorious. Hundreds of enemy were killed. Many more were badly injured. What are you going to do to help me? When are you going to help me? What is your plan of action and milestones? I'm sick and tired of my accurate, well-written, very important information being left out of this historical article. I want it corrected it soon. Every day that passes, more of our generation is dying. My time will come; perhaps sooner than later. Readers of this article are missing important information. If they are family members of Marines who participated, they are missing pertinent data. Please help soon! Thank you! Thomas (Tom) Michael Rutherford, Sr. Captain "Mustang" U.S. Marine Corps (Ret) Director, Special Security, Space & Defense (Ret)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.254.110 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tom, and welcome to Wikipedia! When you get the chance, please take some time to read through the tutorial. One of the core policies of Wikipedia (mentioned in the tutorial) is "No original research", which prohibits editors from adding their own knowledge into articles unless it is supported by an externally published reliable source. When you add information into the Operation Taylor Common article, you'll need to cite a reliable source that backs the added content.

Unfortunately, stating your personal experience is not enough to replace the need to have reliable sources. This is because anyone can claim to be someone else online, and there is no way for anyone else to verify such a claim. If you want to tell your story, the best way to do so is to have your writing published in a reliable newspaper, magazine, or website. Alternatively, you can write a book and get it published by a respected publishing house. After your writing is published, it will be an eligible source for Wikipedia. Hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 08:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi I have made an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Healthcare_Tech_Outlook

Can yu tell the reference are reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Gilbert (talk • contribs)

Your only sources are from the subject of the article. I guess, to put it simply, Wikipedia is not so much interested in what a subject has to say for itself, than it is in what other sources have to say about the subject. The best thing to do is probably to first gather all of the reliable, secondary, independent sources you can find about the subject. Then see what you can write just using information from those sources, and try to limit self-references to filling in details of things already mentioned. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's used in several articles - It's based on our software and works the same way. The answer seems obvious to me but before I remove it from Karam Singh (historian) I'd like to be able to point the editor towards a discussion. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I think SikhiWiki:General_disclaimer supports this view (the view being get it out yesterday), and of course WP:USERG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably not any good as EL either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• No. it is not a reliable source. I have edited extensively in Sikh and Punjab related topic area reviewing a lot of sikhism related sources. My conclusion is, Sikhiwiki.org is not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. Anymention of the sikhwiki should be removed on sight. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content prohibits us from using it as a source. I have seen IP editors generally using Sikhwiki on wiki articles to further militant and fundamentalistic Sikh fringe view points.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Catchy name, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Mediaite reports on what people are saying in the media. I find it to be a reliable source for quotes combined with video clips that support those quotes in context. Its basic modus operandi is "he said this, she said that, here's a video clip, see for yourself." Its reportage appears balanced with no evident partisan bias I can detect.

Granted, their headlines are sometimes kinda clickbaity ("Fox’s Wallace and CNN’s Tapper Both Call Trump-Kim Meeting a ‘Failed Summit’ to Bolton’s Face") and their prose is sometimes "breezy" (The New York Times it ain't) but it is a useful source for "nuggets" of quotes/videos that are not readily found elsewhere (with an exception being Twitter, which some editors frown upon, regardless of who made the tweet).

The site carries a smattering of opinion pieces, which are clearly identified as such in both the article body and in its URL so they can be challenged accordingly if used by an editor.

I suggest Mediaite be given a "green" rating here, with a qualification similar to that for The Hill (newspaper): The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.

Comments? soibangla (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion atm, but here is a discussion from 2017: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_225#Mediaite. It's certainly used as a source , I don't think there's anything wong with being WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable. Mediaite is owned by Abrams Media, which is the parent company of Law & Crime (recently discussed here, formerly known as LawNewz) and The Mary Sue (RSP entry). I find the quality of Mediaite and Law & Crime to be similar: reliable for uncontroversial statements, but probably not usable for contentious claims related to living persons. Many quotations on Mediaite are backed by primary sources (e.g. videos from news organizations or Twitter posts from politicians); in these cases, citing the Mediaite article would support the argument that the quotation constitutes due weight. I don't think Mediaite meets The Hill's (RSP entry) higher standard of fact-checking and accuracy, but it's certainly usable for claims that are unlikely to be challenged. — Newslinger talk 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"certainly usable for claims that are unlikely to be challenged" is what I'm driving at here: clips and quotes. That's the bulk of their reportage, and it's often otherwise hard to come by without resorting to primary sources. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The remaining question is whether the site should be marked as "Generally reliable" (green) or "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" (yellow) in WP:RSP. In my opinion, "marginally reliable" sources should be considered under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". This isn't a bad classification. It just means that the source is "only reliable in certain circumstances" (in this case, uncontroversial statements), and that editors should "review each use of the source on a case-by-case basis".

I note that Feminist previously proposed more levels of reliability at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 1 § Add more levels of reliability?. This proposal would convey Mediaite's reliability more precisely, but would also be challenging to execute. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. Marginally reliable, better sources such as The Hill are preferred where available. feminist (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem: Better sources are often not available, I'd use them if they were. Clips and quotes are Mediaite's meat and potatoes. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, if Mediaite is the only source, it may be good to consider WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION. That we can relibly source something does not necessarily mean it should be in an article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

On the Denuvo wiki page are lists with information on games that use the said protection and whether they're cracked or not.

Considering the nature of game protection cracking, it's usually not easy to find reliable sources. Can the following sources (which are used as sources for the majority of the entries) be used for the mentioned purposes:

1. steam, steam's game EULAs or steamdb as sources for the presence of denuvo in a certain title? 2. websites like xrel.to and predb.pw as sources for the status of cracks?

If these are not considered acceptable sources, should the list be proposed or nominated for deletion? Some editors did try removing it in the past but other users brought it back.

P.S. how can I propose or nominate a section of a page for deletion but not the entire page? The PROD and XFD tools seem to apply to the entire page. Eddmanx (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eddmanx. Removing certain content from a page is technically not the same thing as deletion. Generally, if you feel that certain content needs to be removed because it's inclusion is clearly contrary to some Wikipedia policy and guideline and that the removal will actually be an improvement, then you can just remove it per WP:BOLD. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. If nobody disputes the removal, then you can probably assume WP:SILENCE; if somebody challenges the removal by re-adding it (and it's just someone messing around or an obvious case of vandalism), then follow WP:BRD. In this case, however, it already sounds like what's happening is a content dispute between different people. Has there already been some article talk page discussion about this? If there has and a consensus has been established, then you should follow the consensus even if you might not agree with it. If there hasn't been any discussion, you should follow WP:DR and perhaps start one yourself to see if a consensus can be established one way or another. As for the specific sources you mentioned above, xrel.to appears to be in German (so I can't read it) and predb.pw appears to be some kind of download site for video games. Being in a language other that English doesn't mean a source cannot be cited per WP:NOENG, but linking to questionable websites which might be hosting copyrighted content in violation of the rights of the original copyright holder isn't allowed per WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER (even as part of a citation). I'm not very familiar with these types of websites, so perhaps someone else will provide you with more details below. You can also try looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and asking for help on that talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't know a specific page regarding video game sources existed. I'd ask there. Eddmanx (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple discussions of this in archives, but no consensus? It looks pretty shaky to me, every individual community has its own group, so who knows whether a given community group has any oversight. --valereee (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I've said for a long time that Patch is not a reliable source. It is more like a distributed semi-amateur collective blog than an actual journalistic source. It is, at best, the Uber of news. GMG^talk 11:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• An inspection of Patch Media's articles reveals 5 categories of authors, which are disclosed in article bylines:
  1. Patch Staff: Marginally reliable. Patch doesn't disclose a full list of writers, but they have a lead editor and an editor-in-chief. Patch claimed to hire full-time journalists when it was owned by AOL, but fired a large number of employees when it was sold to Hale Global, an investment firm. As of 2017, some of their writers still appear to be full-time employees. I can't find any published editorial policies. Patch staff articles should not be used for contentious claims, especially ones related to living persons. The quality of Patch's staff-written content is similar to the quality of Bustle, which is currently being discussed in an RfC on this noticeboard.
  2. Patch National Staff: Marginally reliable. Similar to Patch Staff, but only appears in the "Across America" location.
  3. News Partner: This label indicates syndicated content, and the article should be evaluated by the reliability of the original publisher or author. Patch syndicates articles from The Conversation, which has not been discussed on this noticeboard, with the publication's Creative Commons license.
  4. Patch Contributing Writer: Generally unreliable. The requirements to be a contributing writer are low and the writers are unpaid. The editorial process for contributions is weak, and contributed articles should be treated like self-published sources, as with content from Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry).
  5. Patch Poster: Generally unreliable. Anyone who signs up for Patch can post content, which makes articles from posters self-published user-generated content.

Patch also has a lot of blog-like content (including polls, open questions, and event listings) that is not in an article format. There is no evidence that any of this content is moderated for accuracy, and all of Patch's non-article content should be considered generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 09:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Editors at Talk:Jewish Voice for Labour#Reliability of New York Times are asserting that Jewish News and The Jewish Chronicle are superior to The New York Times. Furthermore, they are asserting the NYT made a mistake. The NYT piece in question is For U.K.’s Labour, Anti-Semitism and Corbyn Are as Divisive as Brexit, New York Times, 21 February 2019. The content is question is: "Jeremy Corbyn set up JVL in 2017 in order to tackle allegations of antisemitism.". The NYT piece reads, in its own voice (not a quote, descriptive of JVL): "Jewish Voice for Labour, set up in 2017 by Mr. Corbyn to take on allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party". Seeking uninvolved editors. Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that's certainly special. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That is a disingenuous way of framing your interlocutors views. Nobody has said as sources that Jewish News or Jewish Chronicle are superior to the New York Times. What they have said is that this line in the NYT is an extraordinary claim that no other source has backed up. And that this specific line is not the focus of the NYT piece, that it is an aside in a column with a different main topic, that topic not being who created Jewish Voice for Labour. You are taking a throwaway line in a source that is not focused on that subject and attempting to use it as though it were undisputed fact. The NYT is an excellent source. One that occasionally makes errors. When there are other sources disputing what they say it does not trump them all, especially when the line you are using is not the actual subject of its report. nableezy - 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as an example, some years back a user tried to use this NYT article, which contains the words "Katzrin, the largest town in the Golan", to claim in our article that Katzrin is the largest town in the Golan, not just the largest settlement. The problem there is that Katzrin is not the largest town in the Golan, Majdal Shams is (and was). The NYT was quite simply wrong on that, and the Israeli Census Bureau was a better source for the question of what place is larger, Majdal Shams or Katzrin than the NYT is. That does not mean that on all topics the Israeli Census Bureau is superior to the NYT, just that when a source is focused on a particular question they may well be more reliable than a throwaway line in a nominally reliable source that is covering a different subject. nableezy - 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Jodi Rudoren signed one of her New York Times articles, written during a visit to the Golan Heights,as written in Israel (naming the kibbutz as in Israel). She also repeatedly designated Syrian jets flying over the Golan Heights as being in Israeli airspace. That doesn't, per the NYTs RS status, turn these errors into facts.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Golan is a question of POV spin, not fact. As for the NYT piece in question - its topic is antisemitism and Labour. JVL is covered in 6 full paragraphs - so no, this is not a throwaway line, and the source is in depth on the topic. Nor is the claim extraordinary - the JVL is routinely described as pro-Corbyn in independent RSes. Now - any serious objections to the NYT as a source? Icewhiz (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article is not an exploration in to who funded JVL. The line on Corbyn creating it is not the subject of the article, and you know it. That it is "pro-Corbyn" is very much not the same as founded by Corbyn, and you also know that. Anybody can click the link of the article and quickly see that it is in fact a throwaway line, and when other sources dive deeper into that actual topic they do not say anything of the sort. Yes, the NYT is reliable generally. Should this aside be used as though it were a fact? No. As far as the Golan, no that was not about POV spin. That was about a factually wrong statement appearing in an article on a different topic, with an editor, much like here, attempting to use that casual statement in an article not focused on the topic to source a contentious fact. nableezy - 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out here - other independent WP:RSes (not interviews with JVL members or items penned by JVL members) are quite lacking - even nonexistent - on the formation of JVL. Not only haven't contradicting sources been presented to NYT's reporting, independent coverage on the formation of JVL is lacking all together. Editors claiming a top-line WP:RS is in error should try and produce sources - not their personal opinions on the matter. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The burden is not on other editors to produce sources contradicting a unique statement. Policy says a unique claim whose veracity is suspect (because nowhere else have corroboratory sources for it appeared) requires multiple quality sourcing to pass muster, and this you have not supplied. Your tacit premise here is that one quality RS is enough to trump the silence in multiple sources on the claim it makes (in an article where at least one factual error has been demonstrated to exist). Were your approach correct, it would mean anything printed by the New York Times has to be ipso facto accepted on Wikipedia as fact, something that operatively works out to investing that source with Papal infallibility. C'mon. This is obvious. Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally reliable. Use attribution if necessary, such as if other sources are disputing the NYT claim. feminist (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. With more Pulitzer Prizes than any other publication, the New York Times is generally reliable. Echoing Feminist's sentiment, it doesn't hurt to properly attribute the source, and this should be done for any disputed article from any source. — Newslinger talk 04:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Umm. No one has ever questioned the general reliability of the NYTs so this is strawman judgemental stuff. The issue is simple. If a statement that can only be sourced to the NYTs while deals with a topic the NYTs doesn't follow closely, cannot be corroborated in any of a dozen British mainstream newspapers which follow the topic with minute attention to every possible detail, should we cite the NYTs? Or should we, as is the usual practice, regard it as an exceptional claim requiring multiple quality sourcing corroborating the NYT assertion before the suggested edit is made.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The general reliability of a discussed source is always relevant because discussions on this noticeboard will be referenced by other editors after they are archived. Exceptional claims contradicted by other sources can be excluded as undue weight, but discussions on (un)due weight are better suited for the neutral point of view noticeboard. Fortunately, as NSH001 mentioned, The New York Times has issued a correction and there is no longer any conflict between the sources. — Newslinger talk 06:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The original question is now moot. The NYT has finally (after 3 weeks!) published a correction:

  Correction: March 14, 2019

  An earlier version of this article misstated Jeremy Corbyn’s connection to Jewish Voice for Labour. It is not the case that Mr. Corbyn played a role in setting up the group.

  --NSH001 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is a healthy reminder to exercise closer judgement than mere automatic endorsement of an RS newspaper when what it states is clearly odd since corroborated by no other mainstream source.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Liberty University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• liberty.edu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

In my view, the article on Liberty University makes excessive use of self-sourcing and obvious press releases published in the local press. Most of the material sourced from the website is promotional in nature, bigging up the facilities, student numbers, courses and such. I have been trying for some time to prune this down, but there is steadfast opposition especially from one editor who has twice reverted removal of content that is exclusively self-sourced. He does not accept that the material in question is promotional, and insists that because self-sourcing is permitted for "uncontroversial facts", so I may not remove self-sourcing without, basically, his approval.

Given the controversial nature of Liberty, I don't think it's a stretch to say that all content should be sourced from reliable independent secondary sources, many of which have an assessment of Liberty's merits which differs markedly from its own, even in fundamental matters such as the extent to which its policies follow truly Christian values as opposed tot he values of the extremist religious right. As I say, it's a controversial subject and I think self-sourcing is always going to be a problem - but in fact I routinely remove self-sourced marketing claims form all kinds of articles even on completely innocuous companies. Guy (Help!) 05:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

First, it's quite rude that you'd open a discussion about my actions on a noticeboard and not even provide me the courtesy of a notification. Second, it's shocking that an administrator is willing to edit war; you removed the material once, I reverted your edit, and you reverted my reversion. Do I really need to remind you of WP:BRD?

Let's get specific. You are claiming that this material is so controversial and the institution's website so unreliable that it must be removed from the article because they're "marketing:" "The school consists of 17 colleges, including a school of medicine and a school of law. It offers 297 bachelors, 319 masters, and 32 doctoral areas of study.^[1] Liberty's athletic teams compete in Division I of the NCAA and are collectively known as the Liberty Flames. Their college football team is an NCAA Division I FBS Independent, while their other sports teams compete in either the Atlantic Sun Conference or Big East Conference. Liberty's athletes have won a total of six individual national championships.^[2]"

Are you seriously claiming that the number of degree programs and the institution's athletic conference are "marketing claims" and the institution's own website is unreliable to source them? If so, on what basis are you making those claims? ElKevbo (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Do "truly Christian values" exist at all? I highly doubt that. Religion is open to interpretation, and nobody has the authority to claim that her flavor of religion is truer than any other. I don't think it's a stretch to say that all content should be sourced from reliable independent secondary sources - I think that's a stretch. I don't see any issue with using primary sources for this article, as long as they are accompanied with secondary sources where appropriate. feminist (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not rude, I lost my session (I am in Bangalore on business right now so WiFi is carp and I have no mobile data plan).

Yes, there are authentic Christian values. Example: the New Testament is explicit about giving away what you have to help the poor, giving medical aid to those in need (Samaritans were a despised minority, remember), welcoming immigrants, not judging, not being vengeful. The religious right is against taxation to pay for social safety nets, strongly associated with aggressive accumulation of wealth at the expense of the poor (it exclusively supports the GOP, whose policy this is), is anti-immigrant - often to the extent of white nationalism, is judgmental as fuck about LGBT people and anyone else who does not follow their preferred beliefs, and of course strongly in favour of the death penalty. You can bet your life that at the stoning of the adulterous woman, Southern fundamentalists would have been at the front of the queue with the biggest rocks. The Biblical model the religious right follows most closely is that if the Pharisees, in fact.

And that's what the sources say. They point out that Falwell has led the religious right in completely embracing the most corrupt and amoral figure in American politics since Agnew, if not before. They claim that Trump, a serial adulterer who paid off porn stars to silence them before the election, and has proudly boasted of his sexual assaults, deliberate bankrupting of small suppliers and friendly relations with murderers, the man with the history of bankruptcies and fraudulent universities and all the rest, is somehow anointed by God, because he will rubber stamp far right activist judges chosen by the Federalist Society. As if a Republican President who was not an egregious fraudster would not dot he same. Well, actually probably only Trump would have nominated Kavanaugh, but you get the point.

They are not Christians because they do not give a damn about anyone other than their own.

All of which is an aside. Liberty's self-sourced advertorial is self-sourced advertorial for a creationist school, so more controversial than the should-also-be-removed self sourced advertorial on other university articles.

All self-sourced advertorial should be removed. Especially Liberty's. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What in the world does the subject's religion have to do with our policies and practices around the use of their self-published materials to substantiate uncontroversial information? Are you claiming that the institution is lying or is otherwise untrustworthy when it comes to reporting the number of degree programs and the athletic conference to which it belongs? If so, that's an extraordinary claim that requires evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly a stretch to say that "Given the controversial nature of Liberty … all content should be sourced from reliable independent secondary sources". There is a clear and long-established policy on self-published sources at WP:ABOUTSELF that allows the use of an institution's website for exactly the sort of basic data ElKevbo mentions. For such data, the website is a reliable source. If the Liberty University article relies too heavily on the university's website in other areas, where self-published sources are not considered reliable, then that content can certainly be removed, but such use does not invalidate all use of the website. We have already have a policy, let's follow it and not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Robminchin (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really, no. WP:RS says sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. All three. Liberty's own website is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable, at least in some areas. It's scarcely controversial, as a matter of Wikipedia practice, to require that disputed content be supported by independent sources, or that self-serving and promotional content be excluded altogether. Guy (Help!) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• The article requires a great deal of rewrite and trimming to change it from a public relations piece to an encyclopedia article. Any section or paragraph without an independent reference should be trimmed or removed altogether. There are also many SOAP/NOTNEWS problems, where obviously promotional information has been added without regard to encyclopedic context or history. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In that case a ton of the political stuff is not news and should be removed. How about we attempt to find sources before removing information, as it's really easy to find. Also removing common information found in every other university article is crazy.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's "common information" of encyclopedic value, as demonstrated by clear consensus, especially in high-quality articles, then I'd certainly agree. --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• There certainly is a lot of unnecessary information in the article that needs to be removed (most of it is sourced from the university itself, but some of it is just unnecessary and would be routine coverage even with independent reliable secondary sources). For example, information about internal requirements and courses (e.g. In the first year, students write a screenplay and produce and direct a short film, The requirements are much like internships for other programs with a religious aspect involved in the experience. Specifically, the CMT includes Ministry Impact and Supervised Field Ministry Experience (SFME). Ministry Impact asks a Ministry Specialist to speak on practical aspects of ministry in the world today.) should not be included, nor mentions of every new building construction and equipment purchase by the university. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Pretty much as MarkH21 has said. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• First of all, even though I am not the least bit religious, I find Guy's comments about Christianity offensive. Based on his response above, Guy is at least as judgemental as he claims the people at Liberty University are. And the political rhetoric that follows is just to distract from the real issues here.
  

Now, to deal with the actual issue here. While, it is never great to rely solely on primary sources, they certainly can be used for certain simple factual information. The belief that an accredited university would lie about the number of majors it offers for marketing purposes is beyond absurd. A quick look at other university articles shows that Harvard, the University of Miami, the University of Michigan, and Penn State all have similar facts sourced to their respective websites. Since they are also accredited universities should these facts also be removed from their articles?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My comments are not about Christianity. They are about the religious right. As the sources make clear, they do not espouse Christian values (if you find that triggering, I suggest you studiously avoid Luke 18:9-14, Matt:5-7, John 7:53–8:11, Luke 10:25–29, and basically any of the rest of the part of the Bible that deals with that hippie Palestinian guy). Christian values are admirable. This is really no different from supporting Muslims while critiquing fundamentalist Islam. Guy (Help!) 05:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Rusf10, particularly on the point about Liberty being an accredited university. Liberty is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, not some specialized accreditation body for only religious schools. In the SACS Principles of Accreditation, Standard 10.5 (page 24 in the linked document) states, "The institution publishes admissions policies consistent with its mission. Recruitment materials and presentations accurately represent the practices, policies, and accreditation status of the institution. The institution also ensures that independent contractors or agents used for recruiting purposes and for admission activities are governed by the same principles and policies as institutional employees." The web site is considered recruitment material, maybe the institution's primary recruitment material, in fact. There is no way SACS would grant and continue Liberty's accreditation if they were misrepresenting themselves in terms of the school's basic characteristics on their web site. And if they have demonstrated compliance to the satisfaction of SACS – through an extensive compliance report and on-site visit by their peers – then why should we question it? Further, if citing this material to the institution's own web site is common practice in similar articles that have been recognized among Wikipedia's very best, then to argue against it here is classic special pleading. Finally, given the various privacy laws applicable to higher education, how would we expect some independent third party to compile or verify information such as enrollment or degree programs offered short of taking the university's self-reported numbers? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The enrollment count is an interesting case which I also brought up on the article talk page. Somehow, Liberty has been self-reporting enrollment of 100,000+ while independent sources report an undergraduate population of 45,000-48,000 and a "student population" of 75,756.

Recruitment and marketing material is almost always written in a way that presents an institution in a positive light. Even if they meet accreditation standards for accuracy, they may not tell the whole story or reflect our WP:WEIGHT requirement which is based on secondary coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 15:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well that figure of 100000+ appears by an accredited insituton. I think some of you are living way too much in Wikipedia land if you think that someone every University gets it's enrollment totals indepdently verified when it's not a requirement. The 100k figure is well known it takes a simple google to find countless examples. Enrollment is not something that even needs a source other than the university itself, what kind of source would even attempt to verify that, it's unneeded. See AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Or maybe some of us are trying to prevent this article from being used as a pr piece, regardless of policy. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

s::::: Here's a really simple generic question for you. A business reports a figure for the size of its customer base on its website: "We have more than 10 gazillion customers!". Reliable independent sources say the business has about four hundred customers. Under what Wikipedia policy would we report the company's claim as fact based on the primary self-published source, rather than the reliable independent secondary source? Myunderstanding of policy is that we not only should but must do the exact opposite. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia consider American universities to be businesses? Plus, the difference between the Liberty self-reported figure (100k) and the figure in secondary sources (76k) is much less extreme than your strawman comparison between "10 gazillion" and "four hundred". feminist (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nor do all reliable sources give a lower figure than the university web site. The figure in the article is currently cited to InsideHigherEd, which actually gives a figure of 110,000, higher than the original claim. That article also gives the breakdown between on-campus and online. Given the nature of online education, I expect the number fluctuates quite a bit, which is probably why Liberty simply said "over 100,000". Regardless, that means at least some reliable, independent sources concur with Liberty's web site, and the attendance figure issue is insufficient to show that the Liberty web site was inflating the numbers as a PR ploy. We should treat Liberty just as we treat other universities with regard to citing basic facts to the institution's own web site. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Eliane Glaser, Labour and Antisemitism London Review of Books 8 March 2019

This is a blog, but to what degree does a blog like this differ from an op-ed. which we often accept. The writer is well published, an academic and did her PhD on anti-Semitism, and I would like input from neutral third parties as to whether her piece would qualify as RS for the Jeremy Corbyn, 18% of which (WP:Undue) obsesses on the basis of the strength/weakness of ephemeral newspaper reportage about his putative anti-Semitism?Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Her blog is extremely unlikely to ever be useable on an article of a living person unless it's specifically about material that isn't directly related to the subject. eg her general thoughts on anti-semitism vs her thoughts on Corbyn and anti-semitism. And her general comments would not be relevant on the BLP anyway, but would be on the article on the subject. And that's *if* she could qualify as a self published expert on the subject, which from a quick peruse she probably wouldn't be. Not having a relevant qualification in the subject, not being engaged in academic research on it etc. While she's been employed as a general opinion columnist, there is no indication her opinion is particular notable, especially the self published blog parts. So it would be a no from me for most uses I am afraid. (FYI I agree the biography of Corbyn is ridiculous when it comes to antisemitism, but I hesitate to touch it due to the issues.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your attention in this regard. I would make, however, the point that, in considering it, I thought of it not with regard to Corbyn personally, but with regard to her judgement about the merits of this ceaseless media campaign against Labour, and dealing with its putative attitude to Jews.

Someone who is, or has been, both a BBC radio broadcaster, Bath Spa University lecturer and a Senior Research fellow at Birkbeck, University of London,(where she gained her PdD) , is a well-published historian and regularly hosted in the London Review of Books, the Times Literary Supplement, The Guardian, New Statesman and The Independent, and who has written earlier specifically on Corbyn (Eliane Glasner, ‘The Authenticity of Hope’, in Mark Perryman (ed.) The Corbyn Effect, Lawrence and Wishart 978-1-912-06468-7 2017 pp.125-137) surely has qualifications stronger than any of the numerous journalists we cite, many of them without any wiki bio? Does the word 'blog' automatically cancel out any other consideration? The issue at the Corbyn page touches on English Jews and England’s relation to them and Glasner’s doctorate and 2007 book deals precisely with that nexus in historical depth.

• Judaism Without Jews: Philosemitism and Christian Polemic in Early Modern England Palgrave Macmillan 2007 978-0-230-59993-2

The Corbyn antisemitism section, as several articles cited there note, deals with media campaigns to demonize him, and the demonizing tendencies of modern political reportage to secure populist consent in the US and Great Britain form the core of two of her books

• Anti-Politics: On the Demonization of Ideology, Authority and the State, Watkins Media Limited, 2018 978-1-912-24812-4, which deals in the rise of populism, the journalism that abets it and anti-politics, and the language of politics
• Get Real: How to Tell it Like it is in a World of Illusions HarperCollins UK, 2012 9780007460069 on PR marketing and spin of political ideas in both Great Britain and the US.

She also edited an important volume on early religious tolerance and the threat to interfaith respect in recent times where ‘tolerance’ is now defined as a Christian virtue extended to Jews and Musli ms, and therefore somewhat ambiguous .

• Eliane Glaser (ed), Religious Tolerance in the Atlantic World: Early Modern and Contemporary Perspectives Springer, 2013 978-1-137-02804-4 surveys both religious tolerance and the threat to interfaith respect in recent times.

These things are at the core of the charges and counter-charges laid against or in defense of Corbyn and the Labour Party, and, in that case, my impression remains, despite your careful argumentation, that her overview of this controversy has some reasonable claim to utility, whatever the format adopted to print it (a good one). Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Two minds over this, she is an academic, but her field is creative writing, not antisemitism. But here books do also cover intolerance. I think this would pass SPS, but maybe no Due.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, with a slight difference. Her field is not creative writing, surely? She teaches that subject, but I can find no evidence that, as opposed to her journalistic and academic work (which at Birkberk is about media and cultural studies), she has a record of 'writing that goes outside the bounds of normal professional, journalistic, academic, or technical forms of literature, typically identified by an emphasis on narrative craft, character development, and the use of literary tropes or with various traditions of poetry and poetics.' If anything her academic and journalistic work analyses the styles of narrative spin used in modern press reportage of politics. It certainly is an interesting job for someone of her background but people who normally teach creative writing, at least in the USA, write fiction, and instruct people on its techniques. She does the latter, not the former, but is very well published as an analyst.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS applies here probably - even if this is hosted by LRB - barring this outright. Furthermore, since there is no lack of published material on Corbyn (as well as Corbyn and antisemitism) - inclusion of self-published material would be WP:UNDUE regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That refers to 'sources of material about a living person', and in that sense I would agree. You do not appear to have understood what I wrote above. I'll repeat it. I'm not proposing her article be used about Corbyn's private life (WP:BLP). I am proposing that when she writes (as an historian)

The populist right’s public enemy number one is the ‘liberal elite’. This phrase deliberately merges two very different entities: metropolitan intellectuals on the one hand, and global capitalism on the other. In her 2016 ‘citizens of nowhere’ speech, Theresa May declared that ‘liberalism and globalisation … have left people behind.’ The elision harnesses public anger at banks and multinational corporations and turns it onto members of the middle-class precariat: academics, journalists and left-wing MPs.This scapegoating of a relatively powerless ‘elite’ echoes the antisemitic fantasy of the rootless cosmopolitan who is also part of an international financial network. The notion that prejudice is festering among the ‘chattering classes’ of North London unwittingly invokes an antisemitic stereotype. It also undermines qualities that are both vital and under threat in an age of philistine oligopoly: intellectualism, expertise, rationality.

Attempts to reveal hidden hatred are a central feature of the asymmetrical identification of antisemitism with the left. Right-wing antisemitism is assumed to be more blatant, and therefore attracts less scrutiny. The left is held to a higher standard, and ‘gotcha’ moments trump statistical evidence

What is new is Corbyn’s indictment of the financial greed hollowing out our society. An analysis of broader social and economic power was missing from British politics through the decades of New Labour, and is still absent on the right of the Labour Party. Corbyn’s message has resonated profoundly with many people. But it is being muted and drowned out by the antisemitism row.

She cites evidence suggesting that many of the critics of Labour under Corbyn consider the party's critique of capitalism itself as intrinsically anti-Semitic,- which is bizarre - and criticism of Israel's occupation as anti-Semitic. However one might, in a line, summarize her argument, it reflects in no way on Corbyn's personal life: it contextualizes the debate on Labour and anti-Semitism in a theoretical framework, and does so with a quality of analytic insight into the strangeness of much of what is being said which you never get in newspaper sources (and a large number of mainstream newspaper sources we use, unlike Glaser's piece) are in a personal attack mode. So the problem is: do we seize on an ostensible technicality to privilege mainstream reporting (hysteria) and exclude meta-analyses of the structure of that media approach, written by an historian with expertise on the topic, as a self-identifying Jew, an historian of English Jewry, a record of reliably publishing her interpretations of Labour under Corbyn, and an professional interest in the techniques of modern politicized media spin? I would have thought the answer was, yes. Policy would not be militantly opposed to this kind of input simply because the op-ed in the London Review of Books is entitled 'blog'. Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether LRB exercises editorial control over the publication's blog. My guess is that this would fall under SPS, thus cannot be used for the Jeremy Corbyn article. feminist (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-marginal-seas-of-the-indian-ocean.html
• http://www.arabnews.com/node/1343146/world
• http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/armoured-patrol-of-war-torn-mogadishu/
• https://www.tuko.co.ke/283244-list-horn-africa-countries.html#283244
• https://www.upi.com/Oman-Yemen-prepare-for-hurricane-strength-Cyclone-Mekunu/7881527098000/

Although the Horn of Africa article makes the claim that the peninsula borders the Arabian Sea, the above sources refute that by saying it borders the Guardafui Channel. Are these sources sufficient for me to remove "Arabian Sea" from the lede of the Horn of Africa article? 92.13.141.118 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, on WP Daily Mail isn't any good for this, and your first link doesn't mention Horn of Africa, haven't checked the others. Since Horn of Africa doesn't mention Guardafui Channel, perhaps you should start with that, not in the WP:LEAD though. Consider discussing at Talk:Horn of Africa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The daily-mail.co.zm domain actually refers to the Zambia Daily Mail, and not the UK's Daily Mail (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 11:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point, my mistake. Looking at that article, it's still not something I would choose as source for Horn of Africa, which doesn't say "borders the Arabian Sea" btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No there seem to be a lot of sources supporting world atlas news. And it does not seem that you have a problem only with world atlas and Arab news. Arab news is reliable but not in some certain cases like in the case of dealing with Israeli–Palestinian related topics or Iranian-Saudi related topics. World Atlas seems fine I couldn't find any criticism against it if you want to know more about it here are some informations about this web site it seems that it is based on Canada. I also found that world atlas has been used a lot in Wikipedia see here. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I briefly touched base on this particular domain in this discussion. One input I received was the same as mine, which is that it is on the same level as Indymedia, and Indymedia is discussed here

Source: Two example in which Streetroots.org (Street paper which is distributed in the city by transients) is used as references.

• Ian_Brennan_(music_producer)
• Kirk_Reeves

Other examples of their use are mostly related to biography articles. Where do we stand on the validity of a source like this? Where, if any, use does it have on Wikipedia as references? Graywalls (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Is a review on TV Fanatic considered reliable for the purposes of determining notability of individual episodes it reviews? It's long-standing (since at least 2006), but was a one-man blog for awhile. They seem to have expanded to the point of having staff writers now, but I'm not sure how to judge its level of impact (vs something more obviously impactful like The A.V. Club, which is notable enough to have its own article). Thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Marginally reliable. TV Fanatic is a Tomatometer approved publication, which means that the publication is reasonably popular or significant. However, from a Google search, I haven't been able to find much coverage about this website. feminist (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the experience I had too. The question is mostly relevant for TV episodes with marginal sources indicating notability (the usual pattern is one review from AV Club, one review from IGN, and one from TV Fanatic) - the question being whether the TV Fanatic review is significant enough to roll it over the line into notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A SYZYGY study of the narcissism of millennials is cited in the "Traits" section and the "Date and age range definitions" section of the millennials article. Are the sources cited reliable? Relevant text:

SYZYGY, a digital service agency partially owned by WPP, uses 1981–1998,^[1][2] [to define millennials].

A 2016 study by SYZYGY, a digital service agency, found millennials in the U.S. continue to exhibit elevated scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory as they age, finding millennials exhibited 16% more narcissism than older adults, with males scoring higher on average than females. The study examined two types of narcissism: grandiose narcissism, described as "the narcissism of extraverts, characterized by attention-seeking behavior, power and dominance", and vulnerable narcissism, described as "the narcissism of introverts, characterized by an acute sense of self-entitlement and defensiveness."^[1][2][3]

Past discussion of PR Newsire: The Des Moines Register is also cited above as a reference for the SYZYGY study. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• PR Newswire is generally unreliable, as press releases published on the site are not subject to editorial oversight. Syzygy is an information technology consulting firm, and the data in the press release is presented in a way that promotes their services. I don't think the press release should be cited in or linked from the Millennials article.

However, The Des Moines Register is a local affiliate of USA Today (generally reliable), and the author of the article contacted Syzygy for additional comment. The article is usable (as long as the study is attributed to Syzygy), since it focuses on the results of the study and does not promote Syzygy. Additionally, the article contains a link to the actual Syzygy study, which should also be usable. Whether this study is significant enough to belong in the Millennials article is a question of due weight, which is better addressed at the neutral point of view noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 23:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, press releases should be treated as self-published sources, as indicated in Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-10. When a company puts out a press release promoting one of their publications, the publication should be used as the primary source, and the press release should be discarded as redundant (unless there is something significant in the press release that is absent from the publication and specifically mentioned in the article). — Newslinger talk 04:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• PR Newswire is very reliable on the matter that somebody put out a press release on that date. It is not reliable for any other purposes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  I believe that matter is covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, which is an exception afforded to all questionable sources. — Newslinger talk 23:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: I added this discussion to WP:NPOVN here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Primary source. PR Newswire articles should be treated as WP:PRIMARY sources, and uses should conform to that policy. feminist (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• PR Newswire is an agency that published press release on behalf with that company, so it is primary source. Note the agency had public relations in its name. I sometimes without a source i may use PR Newswire, but ideally the citation should be replaced by a secondary or the same fact use PR Newswire and a secondary source. Since i usually find there is more information in a press release to act as a plain without judgment citation for a few fact of some acquisitions. Matthew hk (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

So, the question rather is, "is press release and "research" by Syzygy is a reliable source or not". I can't tell and may be not. Matthew hk (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)