Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 261

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 255←Archive 259Archive 260Archive 261Archive 262Archive 263→Archive 265

RfC: National Enquirer

CONSENSUS TO DEPRECATE
There is weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source on Wikipedia. However, after reviewing the arguments in favor of allowing the use of the National Enquirer, as well as the arguments specifically about the creation of an edit filter, I see no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors. There are a few specific reasons for this split: editors correctly point out that the National Enquirer is not widely used as a reference on Wikipedia, while also pointing out that the National Enquirer can be a useful source to cite in specific situations. If there are any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Amended: change "depreciate" to "deprecate" after a request on my talk page to match the established phrasing used to refer to the reliability of sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the National Enquirer be deprecated as a source, with an edit filter implemented to warn editors attempting to use it as a reference? — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. The National Enquirer (RSP entry) has a longstanding reputation for publishing false and fabricated information. The tabloid heavily focuses on living persons, and its editorial practices (which are currently receiving plenty of news coverage) show that its interests are not aligned with providing accurate reports. Earlier today, I removed inappropriate citations of this source from seven biographies. An edit filter would eliminate the possibility that a National Enquirer citation slips through undetected, as it would warn the editor who tries to add the citation and record a public log of every edit that triggers it. — Newslinger talk 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No (ec) While I feel all celebrity gossip should be deprecated, I also note that on medical issues and science articles based on press releases, for example, all media sources rely heavily on press releases, and thus the NatEnq is precisely as "reliable" as the New York Times. The deprecate every source one does not like business should cease, in my honest opinion. Collect (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    WP:MEDRS sets a higher threshold of reliability than WP:RS, but WP:MEDRS only applies to biomedical information in articles. Although both the National Enquirer and The New York Times generally fail WP:MEDRS, The New York Times generally meets WP:RS, while National Enquirer falls far short of this guideline. Reliability is a spectrum, not a binary metric, and the National Enquirer is far enough on the unreliable end of the spectrum to justify its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I am not even sure it really pretends not to tell outright falsehoods.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It Depends - The problem is that, hidden away among all the sensationalism and outright fabrication, the Enquirer occasionally publishes quality journalism (probably the most well known example was it’s coverage of the John Edwards sex scandle... which was seriously considered for a Pulitzer). So... even if the consensus is to (generally) depreciate, we are going to have to allow for (specific) exceptions. Discourage, but NOT ban. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh...kinda I'm with Blueboar. The Enquirer has occasionally gotten the scoop on stories that later turned out to be generally true, and their novel investigations did turn up newsworthy stuff. However, absent verification from some other source, I would strongly discourage the use of the National Enquirer as a sole source of record for anything, even the stuff they accidentally get right, I would only use information from the Enquirer that was independently confirmed elsewhere. I don't find that they are terribly concerned with truth, but will publish true things if it serves their goals. I think the sort of outright ban is a bad idea here, but I would use them very sparingly, and only when other sources are also cited that confirm their findings. --Jayron32 20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The current news cycle has provided us with a story of AMI, the company that owns the National Enquirer, attempting to blackmail Jeff Bezos over the Washington Post's coverage of the political biases (pro-Trump and pro-Saudi) of the National Enquirer. Ronan Farrow says they've also tried to blackmail him. The National Enquirer did get the John Edwards thing right, but I attribute that to a stopped clock being right twice a day more than good journalistic ethos. And remember, Edwards is (was?) a Democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes If we have a similar filter for the UK's Daily Mail, we certainly need one for this "news publication." I never thought I'd have much sympathy for the worlds's richest man, but I do now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I've always thought it was barely two steps above Weekly World News, which we shouldn't have to depreciate because, well, it's Weekly World News. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... - It's clearly not a generally reliable source and is already de facto deprecated. While the essay WP:PUS says "The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes", I'm not convinced never is justified. While a warning would be reasonable, it should make it obvious that deprecation isn't an outright ban on use but that its use is generally discouraged. The note in the Daily Mail warning is pretty reasonable: Note: There may be occasional exceptions to this rule (such as when the Daily Mail itself is the topic being discussed). If you do believe that your edit is an exception, then you may resubmit it by clicking "Publish changes" again. Sometimes one may want to be able to say "the National Enquirer said x" and reference the date, issue, page and so on, but the number of times one is going to justified in doing that is low. --tronvillain (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'll echo the comments above. At this point, if the National Enquirer somehow gets something right, we need another reliable source discussing it. This "source" simply cannot be trusted and this proposal is a wise move. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes they publish obvious and not so obvious hoaxes and have for years. A good hoax contains elements of truth which explains why some of what they wrote is true. They are entertainment and about as reliable as General Hospital would be for medical advice. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    At least General Hospital doesn't outright fabricate most of its stories or extort Jeff Bezos. Alexa, play Despacito — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes It's already deprecated as unreliable, no point not telling people that in a filter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's worse than Breitbart and the Daily Mail. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: National Enquirer is entertainment, not news medium. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes Enquiring minds want to know why we wouldn't. (I was thinking about starting a deprecation RfC on The Sun (United Kingdom) (NA version) for some time, so I'm not surprised someone else did) SemiHypercube 03:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The National Enquirer is only used in 13 articles as of now (see Special:Search/insource:"nationalenquirer.com"). I see no evidence that editors are adding it to articles. A filter is unnecessary as it would rarely be triggered. feminist (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've removed or replaced the citations that are obviously inappropriate ( ). While I expect many National Enquirer citations to be reverted by recent changes patrollers, some do slip through, and the edit filter's logging feature would be useful for future maintenance. — Newslinger talk 06:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    And even if you included these uses, that's only 20 articles citing National Enquirer as a source. Hardly a number which warrants an exceptional filter. feminist (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
The low current usage is not necessary a reason to stop the filter being applied, the filter works happily if its busy or not. I can see no harm adding another well known mostly always junk source to a pile of equally rubbish sources. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC) i just read Peter Gulutzan's comment below
I've published a query on Wikimedia's Quarry tool that returns all of the edit summaries mentioning the National Enquirer, which shows that the National Enquirer has been cited in many more articles, but most of the links have been removed by other editors. (Note: Don't rely on the number of rows in the results. Not every result is related to a citation of the National Enquirer, but many of them are. Also, this query doesn't include edits related to citations of the National Enquirer that have edit summaries like "Remove unreliable source" that don't mention the National Enquirer.) Ideally, I would have preferred to run a search on the actual contents of article edits, but the text table is not available on Quarry. A more precise query using the revision table also timed out after hitting the 30-minute execution time limit. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Paging through those results it is far from clear that the majority of them are related to NaEnq, still less to deleting NaEnq references. Many of them are simply using NaEnq as a derogatory ("this is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer"), or describing edits about NaEnq that are not clearly deletions ("←Redirected page to National Enquirer"). Without evidence of a significant problem warranting the drastic solution of a filter, how does this ban pass WP:CREEP? FOARP (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Many of the results do indeed show removals of National Enquirer citations ("rv, this saga includes the naming of the alleged couple by the National Enquirer", "rm National Enquirer ref per wp:blp and wp:rl; ce", etc.). The query demonstrates that there were more citations of the National Enquirer than the ones that are currently present in articles. It is not comprehensive and not precisely scoped for reasons I mentioned above. This RfC does not propose a "ban" or any changes to the policies and guidelines, as I have explained in my response to your comment below. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This RfC does propose overriding a guideline. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it does not. This RfC requests enforcement of Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Questionable sources through Wikipedia:Edit filter. — Newslinger talk 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
An automated filter is not required to enforce a guideline. FOARP (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Where else will I get quality sourced news such as "Lee Harvey Oswald’s Secret CIA Contact After Assassination"? 06:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Note to closer: This is a Wikipedia:Humor.. okay? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly No. The damn National Enquirer is a strange yellow bird. It indeed serves a diet of sensationalism sprinkled with doses of pure fantasy (so pure, that it's difficult to imagine someone that takes items such as Elvis sightings as true). But it occasionally serves up a dish of extraordinary journalistic investigation that scoops all the rest of the media and has wider and serious implications. Such finds include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes, and many other similar finds. We must make a distinction here between the Enquirer and similar yellows, such as Weekly World News or The Sun in the UK which have yet to publish one single item worthy of reproduction except for humor or irony and the Enquirer. (I find it strange that there is no deprecation yet of The Sun.) It is sufficient and, of course, necessary to have the Enquirer placed under a formal warning about its unreliability in general but we should permit its use at the discretion and consensus of editors. To effectively ban it outright as a source would be like throwing out the proverbial baby along with the bath water. -The Gnome (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd support a a formal warning about the subject publication's unreliability in general, as I already said. If this is the only purpose of this RfC I'd support the proposal. Otherwise, no. And thanks for the heads up about The Sun. I was not aware of its deprecation with which, as it happens, I very much agree. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It is interesting to see people defending the National Enquirer by saying "it sometimes does useful work", whilst condemning newspapers which have also done about the same amount of useful work that they apparently just aren't aware of. It was the Mail that originally broke the story about Chris Huhne. It was the Sun that broke the Plebgate story. I get the feeling that North American editors are only vaguely aware that UK tabloids do actually have real journalists working for them and -shock- don't just make everything up, with the same issue vice-versa for UK-based editors and US-based tabloids. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Feminist. There are no convincing arguments that we should make an exception here, and there is no broad consensus on this "just in case" trend. I have opposed (and still oppose) deprecating Occupy Democrats for the same reason, as all the time spent on this RfC could've been spent removing references to these sources. I am also of the opinion that these edit filters ought to be temporary, and support repealing each ban when a source's usage (edit filter hits) becomes extremely rare. As new users become more and more aware of WP:RSP, these edit filters will become less and less useful. That's a good thing. wumbolo ^^^ 17:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    Having edit filters be temporary sounds reasonable to me. If this proposed edit filter does not receive enough hits on a trial basis, I would support removing it. — Newslinger talk 01:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    In WT:RSN § Option 1: One template for all sources, there is emerging support to handle all deprecated sources with a single edit filter, which would make the performance impact and maintenance overhead of each individual deprecation negligible. The only remaining question is on the National Enquirer's reliability. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No on reasoning of Feminist and Wumbolo. We should only be seeking blacklist/filters if we have a routine problem with editors trying to add that source repeatedly. We did (and still do) have that with Daily Mail, but I think even most IPs recognize the NE as pure tabloid and avoid it as a source. This is a solution seeking a problem. --Masem (t) 18:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:AF "Because edit filters check every edit in some way, filters that are tripped only rarely are discouraged." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that many editors don't consider the time and resource costs of an edit filter. Is there a way to quantify this?
The deprecation process could be refined to allow a filter for these sources on an as-needed basis instead of applying it permanently. In most cases the reliability of the source will not change but the need for a filter will come and go. –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
That "discouraged" wording is due to this edit by Samwalton9. I don't know whether it refers to costs. All I know is that essays or information pages or RfCs override guidelines more often than seems necessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes very subpar publication that we already should avoid citing in the first place. Dubious tabloids like this have no place here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Heck Yes - Do we give excuses to any rotten-rag tabloids any chance for being inserted into articles? The answer is No. Also, Don't worry about performance. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes -- articles should be built on quality sources, and the evidence shows that this source is far from quality. MPS1992 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Given the way this tabloid has been thrust into the limelight with recent events, there is a real possibility that attempts by editors (particularly new editors with little to no knowledge of RSP) to use it as a source will substantially increase. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Save the editors here some time and effort debating over the reliability of a tabloid...DN (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – There are plenty of better sources available for "scoops". If a "scoop" by the National Enquirer amounts to anything, you can be sure that there will be a more reliable source to cover the story.----ZiaLater (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No They just demonstrated an ability to get stories that no one else would get and now you want to ban them? Complain about their allegedly unethical method all you want but CNN did the same thing. Connor Behan (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes the practice of deprecating perennially unreliable sources with an edit filter that produces a warning cannot possibly harm the project, and stands to improve it significantly. As with all such sources, exceptions may occur, and this proposal would not impact those cases where using the Enquirer as a source is permitted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No No WP:NEWSORG should be the target of blanket deprecation that functions essentially as a ban on using it. This also goes for the Sun and the Daily Mail. Are they great sources? No. Are they potentially useful sources in some cases? Yes. Editors protesting that the sources that have been blanket-deprecated can still be used need to see what happens if you try to use them (DS notices, apparently-automatic deletion without even bothering to read the article, etc.). Finally, all these deprecations brought lately fail WP:CREEP, which is an actually policy (or explanatory supplement to a policy) and therefore ought not to be ignored (but is again and again) - specifically it requires that the proposal be a solution to an actual existing problem ("not a hypothetical or perceived one") and that the proposal if implemented is "likely to make a real, positive difference", and neither of these have been shown. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    "News organization" is a very charitable description of a supermarket tabloid like the National Enquirer. WP:ABOUTSELF permits all deprecated sources to be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and in my experience, editors have honored this exception for questionable sources. Discretionary sanctions boxes were discussed in The Sun's RfC, but no such template for deprecated sources actually exists. This RfC does not propose any modifications to existing policies and guidelines, and every RfC seeks to establish some form of consensus that editors are expected to reference and follow in the future. — Newslinger talk 12:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
As was pointed out by User:The Gnome above, National Enquirer has uncovered stories that "include not just the John Edwards extramarital affair that effectively ended the senator's presidential aspirations or the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter that forced events in her campaign, but the discovery of O. J. Simpson lying about never owning Bruno Magli shoes". However, under this blanket deprecation, we should not cite the National Enquirer as sources for articles about these subjects. WP:ABOUTSELF is not a cure-all, not even nearly. And this still leaves the WP:CREEP issues (which, again, is an actual honest-to-god supplement to a policy) which everyone keeps ignoring in these deprecation proposals - what is the real problem that this ban is directed to addressing? How is this proposal "likely to make a real, positive difference"? We already have policies in place regarding reliable sources, why aren't those enough? FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
This RfC does not propose a "ban". In this discussion, you and other editors have made multiple comparisons between the National Enquirer and the Daily Mail. The community has decided in two separate RfCs (in 2017 and 2019) that the Daily Mail should be deprecated. This proposal seeks to apply the same treatment to a similarly unreliable source. WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:DUCK, this is a ban because the effect is to notify patrolling editors that a reference to the NaEnq has been made, and the response is almost universally to delete the reference - hence, a ban. The previous DM RfCs were wrongly decided in my view and per WP:KOOLAID I don't see any reason to stop saying so though I don't intend to belabour the point. Finally, stating "WP:CREEP applies to text in policies and guidelines, and not to their application" is practically the definition of a formalist argument - the text decides what the application will be. It's also wrong because WP:CREEP is about creating new instructions, and most definitely about whether a filter (i.e., a new instruction) should be put into place at all. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
From the opening paragraph of WP:CREEP: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to explain community norms for all readers, especially those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia operates. It is important that such pages remain easy to understand and in line with community consensus." Edit filter warnings don't elongate existing policy or guideline pages. They appear only when needed on the editing page to caution editors against making edits that violate existing policies and guidelines (including the reliable sources guideline), and they are targeted to the specific edit. This RfC doesn't propose any kind of change to the reliable sources guideline. To counter a point you've made before, explanatory supplements (such as WP:CREEP) have the "not been thoroughly vetted by the community" label, and are ranked lower than guidelines ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). — Newslinger talk 21:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
FOARP is correct that the filter is an added instruction, no matter how many times you make the irrelevant response that your proposal does not "change" a guideline. It is (a) against WP:AF because more than one editor has pointed to how rare edits seem to be; (b) against WP:RS because it says we should base edits on context; (c) against WP:DR because RfCs are for dispute resolution and you didn't show that there had been a dispute (or WP:RFC is about "making changes" but you insist you're not proposing any changes); (d) confusingly explained because your claim that warnings will only be "targeted to the specific edit" will only be true if your own proposal (which makes all warnings point to your essay) fails; (e) confusingly proposed because you wrote "This proposal seeks to apply the same treatment [as what was done to the Daily Mail] ..." but that is not what you wrote in the proposal. But thanks for admitting that explanatory supplements have low status (in fact they have essay status), which means your multiple references on this thread to an explanatory supplement ("RSP entry") are equally worthless. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that edit filters don't change any guideline is absolutely relevant, because WP:CREEP advises against introducing instructions when they negatively impact the readability of existing policy and guideline pages. The proposed edit filter does not do that. "WP:CREEP" is not a substitute for actual arguments. Instruction can be helpful, even if long – when clearly and accurately representing community consensus. Addressing your actual arguments:
  1. This proposal is not against WP:AF. There is considerable support for implementing edit filter warnings for all deprecated sources with a single edit filter at WT:RSN § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources. When implemented, that edit filter will certainly be triggered regularly.
  2. This proposal is not against WP:RS. The proposed edit filter warnings at WT:RSN § Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources clearly indicate to editors who trigger the filter that deprecated sources may be used in certain situations. Editors who believe that the context justifies the use of the National Enquirer may click "Publish changes" one more time to submit their edits.
  3. This proposal is not against WP:DR, as I have no dispute with another editor. According to WP:RFC, "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages." This RfC proposes changes to Wikipedia's edit filters.
  4. By "targeted to the specific edit", I meant that the edit filter warning would only be displayed when an editor attempts to submit an edit that adds a citation of the National Enquirer. These edits are "targeted" by the proposed edit filter. Editors who don't make such edits would not see the edit filter warning.
  5. The Daily Mail is recognized as a deprecated source. This RfC proposes the deprecation of the National Enquirer.
Links to WP:RSP in my comments add context to the sources I mention. Any entries on that page are backed by previous discussions on this noticeboard. If you object to the classification of any source I have mentioned, you may challenge the existing consensus with a new discussion or RfC on this noticeboard, which will be factored into WP:RSP. The WP:RSP list has been backed by two RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources? and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60 § RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?, despite your opposition to both. ​— Newslinger talk 00:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe what I said shows this RfC is invalid, you don't, we could argue further if others care. By the way I forgot "(e) Against WP:RSN instruction 'This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.'" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, not because I think the NaEnq is a worth while rag but instead because in general I am uncomfortable with the widespread deprecation of sources. It seems like as soon as the Dailmail was deprecated there has been a huge push to wholesale ban sources. We already have a process where editors can challenge particular RSs. One of the issues I see is that occasionally these sources might actually get something right but rather than letting the editors involved in an article decide we are going to use a generalized discussion that hasn't reviewed the particular article in question. Are we really solving a problem or risking throwing out babies in bath water. I would personally be very likely to challenge any controversial claim attributed to the NaEnq but because I'm uncomfortable with this deprecation process in general I oppose this one (and likely almost all other examples as well). Springee (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The DM should never have been deprecated in this way and proposals like this one were exactly what was warned about when the DM ban was proposed. There is no essential difference between the DM in the UK and NaEnq in the US. Both are trashy rags that also do real journalism occasionally. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, deprecate. Add filter if standard practice Newslinger, you ask the tough questions... The strongest argument against deprecating this source, made by The Gnome, is that the National Enquirer occasionally produces factual material, unlike other similar publications that almost exclusively produce non-factual/non-supported stories. That sounds like a very compelling reason to not trust this source because they have a temperamental disposition towards verifying correctness. As far as the edit filter, I support if it that's how other such deprecated sources are treated. Ender and Peter 20:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. For decades it has been a definitive example of an unreliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - Reasoning/caveats similar to tronvillain's. That it occasionally gets a journalistic scoop means we can wait until other, better publications pick up on that scoop and apply their standards that have a better track record. How are we to tell, except in hindsight, which are the good ones from among the garbage? It is the other sources that tell us which were good in hindsight, so let's just use those. Occasional use to supplement those other sources, sure, but that's within the very few uses acknowledged in this "deprecation" concept (or should be). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - no case or logic basis presented, just someone voicing personal and generic dislike into an official enemies list that has no policy or other controls is no way to run things. This weakens RS basis to consider specific cases in context by making a generality condemning or blessing whole organizations rather than individual instances. I’m with FOARP as well that UK papers seems already given short shrift — and Canadian and Australian and anything not from the United States northeast... and now “lesser” newspapers ... All of this seems to be endangering NPOV ability to present views in proportion to their true prominence and actual acceptance. At the very least, censorship nominations should be forced to be more than a trivial effort. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see any credible claims of bias against publications from the UK, Canada, and Australia. While the Daily Mail (RSP entry) and The Sun (RSP entry) are deprecated, editors consider BBC (RSP entry), The Guardian (RSP entry), and The Daily Telegraph (RSP entry) generally reliable. Canadian and Australian publications are not discussed on this noticeboard frequently enough to have entries on the perennial sources list. This means that they're uncontroversial, and doesn't suggest that they're unreliable. There are US sources not based in the Northeastern US area, including the Los Angeles Times (RSP entry), Deseret News (RSP entry), and many local publications, that are considered generally reliable. Many US-based publications (including the National Enquirer, which contradicts your point) are based in the Northeastern US because New York City and Washington, D.C. are the media and political capitals of the US, and publications from that area are not afforded any special consideration with respect to the WP:RS guideline. The proposed edit filter does not prevent any editor from adding citations of the National Enquirer into articles. — Newslinger talk 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
That broadsheet newspapers and the national broadcaster don't get deprecated doesn't prove anything. We're talking about borderline cases where North American editors have at least been accused of taking an extremely simplistic view of UK sources (i.e., all our tabloids are garbage) but insisting on nuance when it comes to e.g., Fox News. FOARP (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This particular RfC proposes the deprecation of a North American tabloid. — Newslinger talk 22:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm surprised this is a question. If NE is reliable, then what isn't? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecated? Yes. It's the worst tabloid in the U.S., full of lies. Blacklisted or absolutely 100% prohibited? I don't know about that; apparently according to some folks here it might have some use. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The Enquirer deliberately and unabashedly publishes falsehoods and is not generally considered "reliable" in virtually any instance. In those very rare instances that the Enquirer does score a true journalistic coup, it is quickly picked up by other reliable sources, so it is not needed.Jacona (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
So you think it's OK to cite sources citing the NaEnq, but not the NaEnq itself? FOARP (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. We don't need an RfC every time someone finds a dodgy source. There is no evidence that this source is being used widely (see discussion above) or that editors are fighting over it. Just apply WP:RS the normal way. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, since it is and always has been made up nonsense about celebrities, interspersed with just enough actual facts to get people to buy it when they're in line at the supermarket. It's one of the worst things in print in the United States. It's beyond tabloid journalism, though not quite as deep into fiction-as-news as Weekly World News is. That said, I agree with Finnusertop that we do not need an RfC about every un-source; just list them for banning and don't worry about it unless someone objects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - This has never been an acceptable source, and only rarely has someone been foolish enough to attempt to use it, but we should formalize the depecration. Neutralitytalk 20:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)`
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Enquirer. — Newslinger talk 01:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why isn’t CNN on the list?

Just wonderin’ soibangla (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

what list?--SharabSalam (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
​If you're referring to the list of perennial sources, it's probably because CNN doesn't meet the list's inclusion criteria (described at WP:RSP § How to improve this list). If you do find at least 2 significant discussions in the noticeboard archives, please feel free to add CNN to the list yourself, or ask for help at WT:RSP. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 08:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: Not Even Past (notevenpast.org)

I have a question about the source https://notevenpast.org/lend-lease/ in this article. Is it invalid source or not? It is located in the "blog" category of the site. I think it is totally an invalid source because blog is a self-published source Scotchbourbon (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The Heythrop Journal

Is The Heythrop Journal a reliable source for the rather dubious claims made in Shroud of Turin#Minimal Facts approach? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A specialist peer-reviewed journal is general considered a reliable source - so that journal is presumed to fall into the category of "reliable". If you wish to doubt the reliability of specific authors, try that route, but the journal itself is reliable for theological articles, which are ofttimes not "pure fact" - but otherwise we would have to rule that "no theological claims can be stated on Wikipedia" which seems wrong also. Collect (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. If the claim that the citation is being used to support was a theological claim, the only thing I would check is whether the source say what we claim it says. The problem is that the source in this case is being used to support a claim about the age of an artifact, and in doing so directly contradicts the carbon-14 dating of the same artifact. Is a theological journal reliable for such a claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Short answer, no. We probably wouldn't rely on Nature for theology, and scientists certainly don't rely on a theology journal for science. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
That is orthogonal to the point that an article in a theology journal is reliable on that topic, and we are not using the journal for the Theory of Relativity, but whether, to theologians, what the salient facts are. That a "scientist" knows that God does not exist, for example, is not an issue at all. Else we tread in uncertain waters. As long as it is clear what the nature of the claim is, and the source for that claim, we act in accord with policy. To dismiss it as "unreliable" because "we know it is wrong" is not in the area Wikipedia editors should work in. By the way, "carbon-14 dating" is not guaranteed as to "precision" yet. Nor is theology. Collect (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Radiocarbon dating is more than precise enough to establish a date in the range of 1260–1390 CE and to preclude a date in the range of 30-33 AD. See Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin If you refuse to accept the established science on this you should not be editing anything related to the shroud of Turin. I fail to see how a theology theology has anything to say about the dating of ancient artifacts. The two are completely unrelated. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It is not for us to make sure the truth is only allowed And that is the problem here - when one "knows personally that the source is false" is not how Wikipedia operates. The issue is "verifiability, not truth," remember? Once we start saying "editors who know the TRUTH are better than any other sources, then we should rewrite all our sourcing policies. Right? Collect (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Again you are making things up. I don't claim that the Shroud of Turin has been reliably dated through radiocarbon dating to have been created some time between 1260–1390 CE and not between 30-33 AD because I "know personally" that some source is false. I claim it because every single reliable source without exception says it. The view that the Shroud dates to the time of Jesus is pure pseudoscience with a dash of conspiracy theory. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not "make things up" here, and I request you accord my position the respect that all editor's opinions are entitled to, rather than engage in personal attacks. That you assume essentially anything one can label as pseudoscience should be treated as fantasy of some sort is not found in any Wikipedia policy whatsoever. Indeed, your point could apply to every single article which has any theological connection - including Christian Science, Jesus, Allah and several hundred articles which are primarily on religious topics. Most people understand the religion is not science, nor is science a religion to most folks. As long as the article clearly states that a material from a source is metaphysical or religious, and it is clearly cited and used as such, that should be quite enough.
Reliable for religious views, not for scientific data. feminist (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
It was removed even when the theological nature of the claim was specifically included, so the issue now is that theology should or should not be allowed in any Wikipedia source. Collect (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Now you are just making stuff up. Here is the removal: Noting that the claim was published in a theological journal does not change the fact that the claim "the probability of the Shroud of Turin being the real shroud of Jesus of Nazareth is very high" is a scientific claim, not a theological claim. Theological sources are just fine for claims regarding, say, the nature of God or the Filioque controversy, and indeed both of those articles have a boatload of theological sources. Good luck trying to use a theological source on our Cockcroft–Walton generator page, though. Theological sources are not reliable for supporting scientific claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The comparison between nature of God/Filioque controversy and Cockcroft–Walton generator is a strawman. Regarding that edit, I think it would be appropriate if placed in the Religious views section, but not as it were placed (i.e. in the Scientific analysis section). It is a theological claim and is suitable if presented as such, but not if it were presented as a scientific claim. feminist (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
On what planet is the age of an artifact a theological claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Um --- on what planet is a claim clearly stated to be metaphysical or theological in nature in the edit a "science" claim? Collect (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You can't just make a scientific claim and support it with a citation to a theological source and think that this is OK just because you labeled the source as being theological. Theology makes all sorts of claims. We don't cite creationists regarding the age of the earth. We don't cite Mormon theology regarding the details of how precolombian native Americans lived. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I hope we cite creations regarding the age of the earth in the article on creationism. Who else would we cite for their views. The same goes for an article on Mormon views on North American history. We offer competing sources, but we do use them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
"To implement this, a ‘Minimal Facts’ approach is followed that takes into account only physicochemical and historical data receiving the widest consensus among contemporary scientists." The article isn't simply making a theological claim, it's using pseudoscientific cherry-picking to try and back a theological claim. 06:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.68.203.42 (talk • contribs)

RfC: Crunchbase

There is consensus to deprecate its use as a source, but to continue allow it to be used as an external link in the manner of IMDb and other similar cites. If you have any questions about this close, please ask me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Crunchbase be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia as per previous discussions? X-Editor (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies — Newslinger talk 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: I'd be okay with Crunchbase being allowed as an external link in the external link section of an article as per your argument above. That being said, i'm not okay with Crunchbase being used as a reference/citation in articles per previous discussions and per WP:USERGENERATED. X-Editor (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you be okay with adding Crunchbase to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList as an alternative? The list works differently than an edit filter does, but it would reduce the number of Crunchbase citations without interrupting editors who are trying to add it as an external link. This was the solution I suggested for Discogs at its current RfC. ​— Newslinger talk 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: I'd be okay with adding Crunchbase to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList instead of banning it as a source altogether as per my arguements above. X-Editor (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe. The article about Crunchbase says "Crunchbase sources their data in four ways: the venture program, machine learning, an in-house data team, and the Crunchbase community. Members of the public can submit information to the Crunchbase database. These submissions are subject to registration, social validation, and are often reviewed by a moderator before being accepted for publication." Now, this suggests that the content is subject to editorial review, which is a hallmark difference between an unreliable blogging / personal opinions site and a reliable source. Also, beyond the general-public available Crunchbase, there are several paid products, which suggests that this discussion / decision should be limited to the no-subscription Crunchbase and not necessarily things like Crunchbase Pro and Crunchbase Enterprise. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Crunchbase is not a reliable source as it is usergenerated. It would be like using Wikipedia as a reliable source. As far as the filter, it should be treated the same as IMDb and similar sites as it follows the same concept with the same reliability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. The source is used in totally inappropriate ways. feminist (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Discourage as ref and allow as external link I support any actions that encourages editors to treat it in this manner. We should handle Crunchbase in the similar manner as Discogs, IMDb, and similar user-generated sources. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NO - use when appropriate, likely for business interests and startups. And I’m not inclined to think such a broad/vague labeling is appropriate. Yah, a lot of start up or any tech info they’ll be good for is from press releases, but that’s true for anyone publishing on the topics ... Microsoft or Apple insights being whatever they will give out is a long-standing known item. It winds up usually reliable in technical facts but tending to overenthusiasm in judgement of ease or benefits. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    Self-published sources are generally unacceptable as references. In addition to being self-published, press releases are also sponsored and promotional content. Sources that publish churnalism are considered less reliable than ones that don't, as seen in previous discussions for TechCrunch (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 13:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – WP:UGC, often inaccurate. — JFG talk 02:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes: WP:USERG; no editorial oversight. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but possibly with the alternative above to allow it as an external link per WP:USERG and some indication that people are citing it when they shouldn't, though it's worth noting that we may eventually have to revisit the question of what to do about content produced via machine learning. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - per the above, but I would look for potential RS that may be cited or referenced in their articles. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that we should not use it as a reference for all subjects, especially not for the controversial information. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Crunchbase. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gatestone Institute

Hi, is Gatestone Institute a reliable source? I have removed it from the article of Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War because it was used to cite huge numbers in the article which I couldn't find any secondary independent source that support these numbers. I am thinking of improving these articles that are related to Syrian conflict but I might need to remove this source from each article I am going to start edit in since it is really difficult to edit while there are false informations that are based on unreliable sources. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

From our article: "The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods." So, yeah, no, it's not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
And yet it's linked 220 times on en.wikipedia, with maybe 130 of them to articles. --Calton | Talk 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Gatestone Institute is not reliable. Where its cited it should either removed or replaced with RS references.Resnjari (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Following Calton's link, I noted that several of those refs relate to his page. I removed them as they appear to be a coatrack to provide publicity for the Gatestone Institute, but left one in because it refers to the fact he works for that organization. Is this proper? Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Canb it be used to source details re its funder/founder Nina Rosenwald ?Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. I noticed that there was an edit war in her article and I think the article has a whitewashing issue. I read her article in Wikipedia and compare it to an article published by the nation here and I found a lot of things aren't mentioned in the article of Wikipedia. For sourcing that she is the founder of the institute we might need an independent source. Thank you all for help.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In addition to Calton's list there is also this which is when the link is using Https and not Http.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nishidani and NorthBySouthBaranof: thank you both for your help. I have been deleting this source from en.wikipedia but something got my attention and I think I should note you for this in case any revert started this "survey" is made up by that unreliable source one of the things that it says "My father received a text-message from the Israeli army warning him that our area was going to be bombed, and Hamas prevented us from leaving." I have also removed it from here I find the fact that this massive lie was in wikipedia funny and sad at the same time.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
That was an exceptional claim, dealing with one individual, ostensibly 'cited' by a source hostile to Hamas. We have numerous sources dealing with claims that Hamas acted to use hostages in this way, most contested. So your elision was correct.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, some of the GI cites you deleted were perfectly valid. You can't just nilly-willy delete all GI cites just because they are Gatestone Institute cites. As a perfect example, you deleted the Elie Wiesel one. As I'm sure you're aware, an organization's site is allowed to be used as a source to say that someone is on the board of directors. You need to go back and either revert all your changes and go through them to make sure you are only reverting those that need to be reverted. In addition, I do hope those of you who are so eager to get rid of the GI cites, would rush to get rid of Maan News as well since we all know that Maan makes up news as well. I won't hold my breath, though. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • A shitty source is a shitty source. That you like what they say doesn't make them non-shitty. --Calton | Talk 01:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That's lovely, but doesn't negate anything I said. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think what Calton tried to say is that the source is not reliable at 99% of cases that this source is in contexts that are related to Muslims or Israeli-Palestianian articles the other cases is on its contributors take a look at these articles which says that the Gatestone is not reliable at all and that it spread fake news most of the time regardless of this discussion this source should not be used again regardless of this discussion the only reason for this discussion is that I want to put it in the list of perennial sources that's it. it should be treated like daily mail where it is not used even in its own article. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Every piece or word in Gatestone Institute is unreliable and should not be trusted even if its about its own people also you said an organization's site is allowed to be used as a source to say that someone is on the board of directors; where dose it say that in wikipedia?(I hope you arent making things up) and if thats a legit wikipedian policy then I am self-reverting in the areas where I have deleted them and I am fine with that. "The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods" also its a far-right-wing and anti-Muslim Institute. I think it is worse than infowars! this is an enough reason to delete it from wikipedia. Idk about maan news. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I want to note that Gatestone Institute has used different names like Hudson Institute New York" (not to be confused with the Hudson Institute) and it used this domain http://www.hudson-ny.org (if you actually click on it you will be transferred to Gatestone Institute also it has used the name Stonegate Institute for a short time and it used this domain http://www.StonegateInstitute.org (which also gonna transfer you to gatestone institute)--SharabSalam (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
In general, an organization can be relied upon to self source for their own information. The GI can say who the GI Board of Directors are. If you go to many Wikipedia company sites, you will find such citations. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
So this is a deductive reason not a real policy in Wikipedia?--SharabSalam (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much about GI, but I know that one of the common tricks used by predatory journals is to list editors who have never agreed to such a role. I mention this to show that is a bad idea to have a rule that unreliable organizations are reliable for their personnel lists. Zerotalk 08:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Singles Jukebox

Is The Singles Jukebox a reliable source for musical reviews? The website looks pretty cheap from its interface and layout, and I’m seeing no real proof of credibility.—NØ 18:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Rania Khalek

There is a AfD discussion at Rania Khalek that hinges on whether sources such as "Shadowproof", "Counterpunch" and "Stepfeed" constitute RS and whether coverage by these sources indicate notability. Additional input would be helpful. A previous AfD ended without much participation, and it seems this one could end in the same way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Other simple sources are Salon (website) which has published 9 articles by the person, The Nation which has published three articles, which are both "reliable sources" even if every appearance for RT (TV network) and other articles for "non-reliable sources" is expunged. She has "interesting" views, but that does not make a person "non-notable" AFAICT. Collect (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Autobiographies as sources

A page I am currently working on, Dave Bautista, relies a lot of content on the subject's autobiography (Batista Unleashed). Is it considered a primary source and should I look for alternatives? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You have a add a dash of WP:SELFPUB with a pinch of WP:COMMONSENSE. It's not technically "self-published" in the sense that Twitter is, but you should still be cautious to use it for overly self-serving claims not otherwise covered in third-party sources. You should also be mindful that, as an autobiography, it's probably not going to include anything unflattering, and may go into a level of detail that may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. So you have to weigh than when using the source to gauge WP:DUEWEIGHT. Having said that, an autobiography can still be very useful, especially for comparatively run-of-the-mill information that might not be included in other sources, but may still be relevant to a thorough coverage of the subject. GMGtalk 18:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You can use it to support facts or augment something that's already mentioned by something that would establish notability but autobiography is useless as a reference for establishing any notabilityGraywalls (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It is a reliable source because it is published by Simon & Schuster which is a respected publisher. They do not publish books when they expect them to contain false information. And while autobiographers generally have a bias toward themselves, biographers may also have bias toward or against their subjects. Bias is however separate from reliablity and is addressed in weight. As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to their own facts
What is unreliable however are interviews. For example, a biography may say something like, "Mr X. said that when he arrived in this country 50 years ago, he had a dollar in his pocket."
TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Umm, an auto-bio is not independent of the subject and may be WP:BIASED and self serving (regardless of the publisher, and this is expected in an autobio). Best not to use for anything controversial (unless attributed - e.g. a response or observation by tue subject). Can be very useful for fill basic bio details (childhood, studies, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

FreeBMD as a source for BLPs

I found this page being used at Katya Adler. See the disclaimer at the bottom, "We make no warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy or completeness of the FreeBMD data." We use it a lot, including in some instances a link to empty search page.

Having said that, it's had an award from the Society of Genealogists and the Guardian lists it as one of the best "family history" websites. Sounds good until you look at the 50 and see a lot that clearly wouldn't pass WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Freebmd provides a copy of the original page provided by the general register office which is the primary source. It may be actually better to quote the original source rather than a site that has just added it to a database. For older records the GRO actually has its own website for looking up births and deaths. Note like all primary sources they should be used with care as it easy to make assumptions that the record relates to the right individual which may need addtional evidence. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a reliable source as used.
  1. It assumes that this is the correct entry for the person in question. Since it is just an index of a registration, it does not contain the parents' names, the birth date, or the exact place of birth, and thus we cannot tell if this is the right entry.
  2. Even if this were the right entry, we cannot be sure of when the birth happened. The registration index covers three months, but births are sometimes registered long after the event. Meters (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is an abstract of a conference proceeding a reliable source?

In this edit John B123 (talk · contribs) has now twice restored historical information on Prostitution in Overseas France#Martinique based on this source. That is the abstract of a presentation before a conference of the American Historical Association. John's opinion is that this source has been "published by the American Historical Association". It is my understanding that since conference abstracts are essentially automatically published simply by paying to attend and sending one in, these are SPS at best, and certainly not by the society hosting it, but the author. Furtheremore, in this specific case the underlying work has yet to be published or peer reviewed. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

On a procedural point, Someguy1221 has ignored the guidelines at WP:BRD and simply sought to impose his POV instead of discussing on the talk page. The reason behind this user's desire to have the content removed is unclear. The first reason given in the edit summary was "I deleted the paragraph on prostitution in Martinique between the 1850s and 1950s because it was based on my own unpublished work, which I do not want to be copied on Wikipedia--or at least not until it is officially published", the second that it's not a RS.
As far as I'm aware, the American Historical Association is accepted as a reliable source. To suggest, as in this case, that parts of it are not, requires more substantiation the just "my understanding is ...". --John B123 (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's a reliable source, but I could be mistaken. I'd like to hear the opinions of other editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It depends. To begin with most conference papers (SIGRAPH being an exception) are lower quality than journal papers. However, in this case it is unclear to me whether this a published paper in the proceedings or an unpublished presentation. If it is just a presentation - then the abstract is probably not peer reviewed (not that all conferences peer review papers, but the good ones do). In which case - it probably had minor vetting from the organizers (a no-nonesense check) - and would primarily be the speaker writing it. It would still be a notch up from a SPS - and the speaker presumbly has some expertise if they are giving a presentation. RS is not black and white - in this case it looks like a low quality academic source (which is still better than many media sources). I would prefer a journal or conference paper - but if this is what you have and it is not contradicted by something else I would not throw it out.Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Icewhiz's take.
To expand a bit: AHA invites proposals for sessions at its annual meetings and these proposals (which include the abstracts of the papers to be presented in that session) are then reviewed to decide whether the session is accepted or not. I don't know if the review is more granular than that, as would be the case for typical journal submissions. So in this case the abstract has presumably been given a read by the person(s) proposing the session, and (more cursorily) by some members of the program committee. This, along with the fact that the author is a history PhD specializing in this area, would make the abstract better than a typical SPS and IMO an acceptable source for non-exceptional claims. Abecedare (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz and Abecedare make excellent points. I'm assuming it doesn't contradict other reliable sources and doesn't make extraordinary claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

V question for Presidency lead ?


I am looking for some more inputs and policy clarification about a V and LEAD question.

Recently Presidency of Donald Trump copied a line from the lead of Donald Trump. (A proposer opened discussion a day before at the Presidency TALK here, and editor made an edit the next day here.))

That however means the lead at Presidency is based on content and cites in some another article. It is not based on cites in the Presidency article and about the article’s topic and body.

For V in Lead situations, please provide more inputs and policy clarification below about ‘the cites and content summarized are elsewhere’ question/situation. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Possibly put a cite in the Presidency article to the Donald Trump section would be the simplest way to show where the line came from ? Markbassett (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ledes are a summary of the article not a place to be adding new, sourced content. If it's not source in the article, remove it. If it is sourced, then include it. In this case, if it's not sourced, add an entire section to the article to support the clearly verifiable claim. If there's another article on all of Trump's lies, a {{main}} and summary in the main article are all that are needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz the Presidency article has a section talking about the fact checker counting ... not an overview and obviously not about the campaign. Would the Presidency body having a note 'Main article' pointing to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump suffice ? Markbassett (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a shame. Update the article to reflect the sources and then make sure it's in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • So the article reflects the sources and the sources support the statement. Why is it a problem to include in the lede? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem, perhaps Markbassett can reply. starship.paint ~ KO 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Walter Görlitz No, not based on content of the Presidency article. Proposed here was to copy from BLP based on RFC at the BLP here as shown below.
I propose to add the following sentences to the lede. This mirrors the Donald Trump article, and is virtually identical to the version which achieved consensus in a recent RfC with the exception of the first wiki-link to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. starship.paint ~ KO 03:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency. The statements have been documented by fact-checkers, and the media have widely described the phenomenon as unprecedented in American politics.

  • It does not summarize the Presidency article body content, relative amount of content, or cites in Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements. But again, the question here is for inputs and policy clarification on the V and LEAD in this copied-line situation. The CWW mention from Marchjuly so far seems best fit to the events and situation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Markbassett - please don't write my signature when copying my quote. It's really weird to me, because I didn't write that here. Now, just because the lede sentence was copied from elsewhere doesn't mean that the body doesn't reflect it. The body, already had the relevant subsection on False and misleading statements, and it has been continually updated along with the information in the lede, and the lede does adequately reflect the most pertinent point of the subsection. starship.paint ~ KO 02:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Starship.paint The history trail is clear this was put forward as a copy, and TALK at Presidency was pretty clear not a focus to summarize content in the Presidency article. The question here is for inputs and policy clarification in the copied-lines situation. If you’re suggesting an alternative of rewrite the body to fit the lead instead of LEAD guidance to summarize from the body, I like that less than simply capturing that it is a copy per CWW. I doubt LEAD clarification would like an alternative of ‘or go the other way and expand from the lead into the body’ better than CWW or view it as truly complying with the intent of LEAD, but will see if any chime in that feels like better general policy or something. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Markbassett Even if it was put forward as a copy, it does not mean it does not summarize content in the Presidency article. These things are not mutually exclusive. You can read the state of the article one month before I ever proposed that text in the lede, the relevant content to be summarized is all already there. starship.paint ~ KO 03:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint there is no “if” about it’s being ‘copy’, put forward that way and wording is simple fact. And no, for the purpose of guidelines I believe the two *are* exclusive because the handling is. Either the basis in effect is it’s a copy with fixed wording and hence this thread and maybe CWW marking, or else it shows it is not by discussions on wording not based on copy and actual changes in text. Being handled by a stance of copy excludes individual edits, and being handled by a stance of individual requires actual TALK and edits - it is what it does. If you now think the basis should not be copy, then like any change to these article’s lead that would require you to start a new TALK thread proposing that change, and see if folks concur. Meanwhile it was put in as a copy, accepted basis is copy, and the question here is inputs and policy clarification for the case of a copy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


  • (edit conflict) One Wikipedia article cannot be cited as a source for another Wikipedia article per WP:WPNOTRS; so, I don't think a citation would help here. What it sounds like to me is something having to to do with WP:CWW. Article content from one article can be used in another article (within limit) as long as it's been properly attributed per WP:PATT. If the original content in the "Donald Trump" article was written by someone who then added it to the "Presidency of Donald Trump" article (i.e. the same person did both), then the edit itself is probably sufficient for attribution purposes; however, if there are two different people involved, then the original creator needs to be attributed. This can either be done by edit summary or by a template on the second article's talk page. Now, whether attribution is really required depends on the nature of the content and how much original thought went into writing it. A simple statement like "Donald Trump is president of the United States" probably is so simple and generic that it probably doesn't require attribution since there are really only so many ways to make the same statement. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Marchjuly CWW looks promising to record the copy source. (WP:CHALLENGE not so much, but history is good...) The original source was created at Donald Trump lead by a RFC, not summary of that article content there or cites. So would the marking for this case be a hidden comment in Presidency of Donald Trump mentioning the line is copied and then the copied template at the Donald Trump article TALK page ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As a matter of practice, I copy text from article A to article B verbatim with edit summary copied from article (whatever), and I use version history to get the actual version number of the source article. Then, in one or more later edits, I make whatever changes make sense to integrate the copied text into the new article. Third, I read the entire changed text to make sure that Article B, standing on its own and in my opinion, is neutral and passes verification with good citations to RSs. Please do not use the copied template, because edit summaries are perfectly adequate, so why clutter up the page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • When there is a well-sourced article about a related topic, that topic should be summarized in the main subject's article with a {{main}} pointing to article. Sources should be included. That section should then be summarized further in the lede. The lede itself does not need sources. The section in the article should have sources. The separate article should be well-sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • User:NewsAndEventsGuy. I’m thinking CWW would be template at TALK, and a hidden comment at the insertion (start and end of copied), yes? In this case, sources were WP — it’s copying text from BLP lead based on RFC there into Presidency lead based on TALK of copying, with mod of wiki linking to a third article expanding upon the topic. There’s been some later supportiveish additions at the Presidency article of 9 cites added at lead and a paragraph inserted at start of a body subsection. Any input or suggestions ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
If the approach depends on the longevity of a hidden comment buried in article text, that's a guarantee that sooner or later attribution will be broken. With the passage of time, hidden comments are often cast adrift from the contextual placement in the article if indeed they were not sucked up by the periodical zamboni crew. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Margaret Barker a reliable source for the Book of Enoch or Seven Archangels? -addendum, and Hugh Nibley?

She appears to be on the fringe of Christian scholars. This article in an LDS Journal also suggests she's not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Watcher (angel). Doug Weller talk 10:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
From what I can see she is "fringe" only to the degree of dating Enoch atypically early. Having read the LDS article, it's merely an occasion for expounding some of these views without any significant participation in LDS theology. Looking at GScholar I see she has one paper with 126 cites, another, 129. I'm having trouble dealing with the talk page because of the typical wall-of-text found around those articles, but I would prefer to find some commentary on her views before simply dismissing her. Mangoe (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Her work seems non-conformist rather than fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC).
@Mangoe and Xanthippe: thanks. I'd also like some reliable comments on her. She's also used here in a different context. The editor also insists on using Hugh Nibley despite my telling them he's not an RS for anything but LDS views, am I wrong on that? Doug Weller talk 15:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a short summary of her thesis and what I would characterize as an "orthodox" criticism of it here (see the section "1 Enoch and the Canon of Scripture"). I would tend to limit her to discussion of the texts themselves and be clear that her views are not widely shared. She seems to fall into the OT version of the Jesus Seminar "Thomas tells us about early Christianity" crowd, but I don't know that there's as strong a position there. She's obviously not someone to be cited outside this fairly narrow field.
Nibley obviously should only be invoked as an authority on LDS views, and nothing else.
There's something of a running theme in this in that uncontroversial statements and positions should be cited to generally accepted authorities, rather than to subsidiary writers whose views happen to agreee with the mainstream. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Student Crowd

Is Student Crowd a reliable source? See diff at University of Winchester. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a mixed opinion here. First, I think it's less a matter of "reliable" than "significant". Obviously the student reviews are not reliable sources, so the question is whether the rankings are significant. Student Crowd's website helpfully provides no information on how anything is reviewed or edited, or what qualifications any of their writers or other employees have. There are no obvious measures to filter out fake reviews. It's not promising. But then, looking through Google News searches and more directed sources, they are not infrequently cited by ordinarily reliable media. Specifically their rankings get cited. So on one hand, I'd be inclined to say that, "well if they are widely cited, they have a reputation for something something", and their opinion is significant. On the other hand, I suspect writers for Times Higher Education and some other sources just saw a popular website with a ranked list and cited it, and don't really have an informed opinion on it. But then on the third hand, maybe that doesn't matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
In this case, I investigated the edit history of that editor and it has revealed that he's been exclusively making edits that was for the purpose of inserting the same domain or other junk links. I've reverted all of them. Graywalls (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The only reliable information it conveys is something along the line of "the institution has a ranking of x on the website x" but when the discretion to introduce a statement sourced by this kind of website in the hands of editors, there's a general increase in susceptibility of article tampering by public relations professional or by those involved with the source or the subject to amplify a certain position. They have a tendency to aggregate and publish information that presents the subject in a favorable light or sometimes the source is added for the sake of promoting the review source. Graywalls (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Weather Underground

I have seen some tropical cyclone articles using Weather Underground like Cyclone Idai . I don't know if it is reliable or not but IMO it is not reliable because it appears to be a blog. --219.78.191.180 (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well any site that puts news and blogs under the same heading rings alarm bells with me. Also there are SPS issues here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It's entirely member-generated data and there is no guarantee that those writing articles are experts. In this case Masters is a co-founder of the site. It's not clear what his doctorate is in, but we can assume it's meteological. The site's organizational structure is not a question. If additional, more clear sources can be found, use them, otherwise, I don't have a problem with using this as a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliability Of IWMBuzz

Hi, I actually wanted to know about the reliability of this publication IWMBuzz. Link is :
IWMBuzz
It was previously known as Indian Wiki Media and I have seen it been used as a reference under that name quite a few times. I would just like to know if it qualifies as a reliable source as there have been doubts raised about its reliability . In the already sparse field of News and Articles on Indian Telly Vision , it would be of great help if it can be classified as reliable - if it is indeed deemed one - as it is a treasure trove of information that we would otherwise have to spend hours scouring the internet for . Awaiting your opinions and replies ,

Thank you --Peter025 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

IWMBuzz is an advertising agency. (Its web site uses the expression "advertising agency" to describe itself.) It refers to the people it writes about as "clients", and says numerous things such as "We are committed to make your business grow"; there are many more examples. it is absolutely not an independent reliable source of information for anything, and there is no ambiguity about that at all. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
So even articles which are unbiased but are from this source would still not be accepted , am I correct JamesBWatson ?

I also read somewhere on Wikipedia itself that if articles from reliable sources are short then a person could combine such references and create something like a unified reference which in turn may help attain notability , is this true? Would such a "unified " reference - consisting of a combination of shorter references from reliable sources - be considered as something derived from reliable sources? --Peter025 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It depends IMHO, it depends on the context. How is it being used? If we're talking about its founding date or where it's headquartered, I don't see a problem. If we are saying "Actor Xyz is the best actor in India", that's different. Buffs (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for the response Buffs, I am assume your response is to my question about unbiased articles from IWMBuzz. Can you/anyone please answer my second question about the unified reference ? and if your response was for the question pertaining to the unified reference then I clearly haven't been able to get what you meant, so could you go over that again? Thank you. --Peter025 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    In general, no. That would fall under WP:SYNTHESIS. Can you provide an example sentence? Perhaps we can walk you through how to properly reference the information. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say no, it cannot be used to establish notability of its "clients". To be used to establish notability any source must be independent of the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
IWMBUZZ is not an independent source in regards to their clients or anyone connected to them. An advertising agency is unlikely to be reliable in regards to other people. Therefore I doubt IWMBUZZ would ever have any value for establishing Notability of anyone or anything. In regards to their clients, they may be reasonably reliable for basic non-promotional info such as date of birth. So it might be citable for some basic bio info. However any arguably favorable information would be presumably promotional and therefore not reliable. They have a financial interest in saying positive things.
Regarding Notability: That requires multiple sources, each of which is considered Reliable, each of which is independent of the article subject, and each of which provides substantial coverage of the subject. It is hard to define exactly how long something has to be to qualify as "substantial coverage" - two paragraphs of decent length and containing substantial useful content is on the low end, but is often acceptable. In some cases we might accept multiple shorter pieces as collectively adding up to one piece of substantial coverage. Note that we don't actually unify them as a single reference - it just means that we might count Reliable refs with too-short coverage as a fraction of one item when looking for "multiple" sources to establish notability. Alsee (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Two sources at Eros and Civilization

Hello, I am having to deal with an IP editor at Eros and Civilization who has used sources that I consider unacceptable per WP:RS. Its use of these sources can be seen in this edit.

They are both online sources. The first source can be seen here. It is titled "Eros And Civilization Analysis" and at the top we see the words, "Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student." I think that this is an indisputable example of an unacceptable source for Wikipedia, but I would like to see other editor's views on that.

The second source can be seen here. It is titled "The Psychoanalysis of Philosophy: Towards the Eroticization of Logos" and it appears to be a blog posting. It comes with text noting, "The following is an essay written for a course called “post-secular Jewish emancipatory thought,”". In other words, it is essentially lecture notes, written by an academic, but it would appear not published in a peer-reviewed journal, or anywhere else, for that matter. It might seem slightly better than an essay written by a student, but I think it is also clearly unacceptable. Again, I would like other editor's views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly not RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC).
Since the IP editor is adding these unreliable sources to multiple articles - Herbert Marcuse (visible here) and Eros and Civilization (visible here) - I wonder whether technical methods could be used to prevent this? The problems involved in the IP's insistence on using non-reliable sources are multiplied when they involve more than a single article, and there is no good reason why we would let editors use a website that puts student essays online as a source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Apply for semi-protection. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC).
Not RS, and being spammed (i effect) to promote (I suspect) the work.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Semiprotection has been applied. There's probably no need to discuss it any further here. But for the record, the two sources mentioned above are not reliable. The IP was also citing a third source which does appear reliable, but that source does not support(failed WP:V) what the IP was trying to say(WP:OR). Alsee (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

touregypt.net

Touregypt.net says "We are an American tourism company based in Lubbock, Texas" and they seem to have quite a few pages across their website about Egyptian history and culture. Since they don't appear to me to be a particularly authoritative source, I'm surprised to find that this website is used on > 500 pages, in some cases just in the external links section, but mostly as a reference. Either many editors find this website to be a suitable source, or its heavy use is the result of persistent reference spamming. Is touregypt.net a reliable source for historical information about Egypt and should it be this widely used throughout Wikipedia? Deli nk (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Spam. Tourism-related spamming is a huge problem. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. These articles are self-published sources used as content marketing for a tourism company. — Newslinger talk 10:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Promotional/spam/unreliable. Deli nk, or anyone interested, I'd suggest insta-deleting touregypt from any external links, as well as removing the refs. As appropriate the refs can just be deleted where it's unneeded, or a replacement ref be put in it's place, or replace it with Citation Needed, or potentially delete whatever questionable info the ref was attached to. If you're willing to do some digging, you could try to hunt down some of the edits which added Touregypt. If one or more accounts added a bunch of them, you could post a spam warning to their talk or even pursue a block against the account(s). It's possible that identifying the account(s) would turn up additional spam to eliminate. Alsee (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started removing links (leaving {{citation needed}} in its place where needed), but it's going to take some time and effort. No obvious spam accounts yet. Deli nk (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I've removed it in the past a number of times. I doubt there's much spamming, simply editors without a clue about RS. It'll continue to be used without an edit filter Doug Weller talk 14:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC on the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC)

There is a section of an RfC on the List of Photographers talk page regarding the reliability of the New York Public Library's Photographers' Identity Catalog as a reliable source for nationality, birth dates, and death dates.

The point of contention is that the PIC lists Wikipedia itself as a source of information. Though Wikipedia is one of more than twenty sources that the PIC uses, its inclusion raises concerns that using the PIC on Wikipedia is "circular".

You are welcome to join the discussion at the RfC on the List of Photographers talk page. Thank you. Qono (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Voice of America (VOA)

VOA is not on the list of perennial sources (and I don't see much discussion on its reliability in the archives (aside from that it can be quoted with attribution link)). Can we get a consensus and add it to the list of perennial sources? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Then it does not need adding, if no one challenges it we do not need to have a go to page explaining why it is (or is not) an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The stated inclusion criteria for Perennial sources is "repeatedly discussed sources", however you say you "don't see much discussion on it". That's an oops :) Alsee (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've removed "RfC:" from the heading of this section to prevent confusion, as this is not an actual RfC. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Is wikispace reliable?

It is the only source in List of Justices of the Wyoming Supreme Court, but it's dead anyways. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If its a wiki, as was said above, no. Its user generated content.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The content previously at https://wyomingstatearchives.wikispaces.com/ was produced by the Wyoming State Archives, an agency of the State of Wyoming, which merely used the website as a convenient repository for official biographies; it was not "user-generated". Unfortunately, the Wikispaces cite shut down and the information does not appear to have been backed up anywhere else. This is an unusual circumstance of Wikipedia having created a record of what was in a public document (albeit hosted in an unusual place), that no longer exists. bd2412 T 18:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the Wikispaces site is dead, I have changed all the citations to directly reference the print documents available at the Wyoming State Archives. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
That is the best idea anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The paper is bad, a couple of writers are good. How do we treat it?

Say we have a newspaper - let's call it the Fubar Times. The Fubar, like any other newspaper, employs dozens of reporters on several desks. There's a strong consensus among RS that the Fubar is a very, very bad newspaper. Some of the sources except a handful of reporters from the foreign affairs desk (not the desk itself, just the reporters), but all agree that the newspaper as a whole is biased and unreliable. My questions to you is: how exactly do we treat the Fubar? Do we WP:GUNREL the whole thing, as most sources suggest? Do we except specific reporters or a specific desk? If most sources aren't concerned with specific desks, can an editor (here) insist that we find sources that are? Or are do we accept the consensus that exists on the newspaper as a whole? François Robere (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We really can't trust individual editors to judge whether a source is reliable, and having the community try to arrive at a consensus for each individual writer is unworkable. This isn't just a problem with The Daily Mail The Fubar Times. In may very well be that one writer at The Daily Stormer or The Onion is reliable, but we can't have individual editors deciding that itb is OK to use those as sources. If The Daily Mail The Fubar Times is unreliable, any reliable reporter working for them is just going to have to put up with being considered unreliable as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Apropos? How Fox News uses “news side” anchors like Shepard Smith to save its brand. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I would like to exploit this article for two points.
  • It says "Fox simply has separate “news” and “opinion” divisions like other outlets." - I am wondering (lazy reader, me) whether our WP:RS rules draw the distinction between "news" and "opinion" pieces clearly enough. - Altenmann >talk 02:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It addresses the concern voiced above (consensus for each individual writer is unworkable) - of course, not for each individual one, but there are quite a few newswriters who are recognized in the world as trustworthy, i.e., we do noot need community consensus on their trustworthiness, only the consensus on whether their tr--ness is commonly recognized, i.e., in the very spirit of Wikipedia regarding "truth". - Altenmann >talk 02:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Per the first point, the words preceding are very important:
"Fox’s ... public relations strategy relies on being able to point to people like Smith as evidence that the network isn’t purely a right-wing megaphone. Instead, the network brass argues, Fox simply has separate “news” and “opinion” divisions like other outlets." (My emphasis.)
The point being that "the brass" are being deceptive. They have one or two people like Shep Smith as their token journalists they point at, to fool people into thinking that the other 98% of their business is legitimate. Well, that's not the case. They are just including that "person (or very few people) of a group so an organization can publicly claim to be" an objective and real news source, so you can safely believe everything else they say and do. It's amazing how many are fooled by this example of tokenism. Just because 2% is good does not somehow make the other 98% good. It's still a propaganda channel, which is the point of the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
And the crusade against Fox News continues... Can you source your 2% statistic? Also, I should remind you that Media Matters' blog is not even close to being a reliable source.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Crusades are motivated by religion; sourcing is based on evidence. Per WP:ONUS the question isn't whether he can source that 98%, but whether you can show that scathing reviews don't apply to some portion of the journalists. François Robere (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: No need to derail the discussion. I just want to know what policy says in such cases. François Robere (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we can answer a hypothetical like this. Even source is different and needs to be evaluated individually. With few exceptions, I'd be very cautious to label any source, as either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. If you have a particular source in mind, please let us know.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
That's an easy out. Don't we have policy on this? Policy is written in anticipation of hypotheticals, and just as well - otherwise you'd have no ability to apply it whatsoever. I want to know what the policy is without coming to RSN every single time, so do tell. François Robere (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"Doctor, she's having a heart attack! What do we do?" - "No, no, wait. We have to discuss this. There's no procedure for 56 y/o Afro-American women of average build." - "But, doctor!" - "No-no, please. This is personalized medicine. We don't generalize."... BEEEEEP... François Robere (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Not a good hypothetical, however hypothetically speaking a desk inside of a source may be extra reliable or extra unreliable in relation to the rest of the source. If a sub-part of an organization has a reputation for fact checking, and we can reliability identify that sub-section from the rest of the organization - then sure - we could treat that sub-part differently. Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We do take authors into account concerning reliability, even to the point of using blogs. As long as the authorship is not in question, we should be taking the author into account for anything better than blogs. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz and Ronz: But the sources would have to be explicit on who or what is the exception, right? I can't just say "well, the entire desk looks fine" if they only name some reporters? François Robere (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I would use the recommendations for opinion pieces and self-published work. If the writer is an expert in their field, we can use it. But note that being a journalist alone does not make one an expert. You would need to show that they had published academic papers in the field they were writing about. However, since weight usually prevents us from using facts ignored in mainstream publications, this is probably moot. Otherwise, journalists' articles are considered reliable because of the editorial oversight and reputation of fact-checking by the source, which is not the case here.
In my experience, the main reason someone would choose to use publications such as Fubar is that they present facts and opinions not found anywhere else. Reliability is only one of the bars that content must meet before inclusion.
TFD (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In theory we could distinguish by author/editorial-section/topic. In practice - it depends how easy it is for us to distinguish, as well as sources available to us on the grounds for distinction. It also depends on "how bad is bad" - e.g. you won't get much traction on the Daily Mail (even if a carve out is justified) as Wiki editors thing it is "very bad". If a source is "mildly bad", exceptions are easier.Icewhiz (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles on Forbes.com are unreliable, as they are written by contributors, not staff writers. The vast majority of reviews on Sputnikmusic are unreliable, as they are written by users, not staff writers. The vast majority of content on Genius is user-generated content that we consider unreliable, yet we consider certain parts of the website (verified content, staff-written content, etc.) to be usable as sources. We continue to treat these sources as reliable, as we can identify reliable staff-written articles among the crap. So, to answer your question: no, we do not consider the whole source to be generally unreliable, even if sources suggest that the source as a whole is unreliable. We don't disqualify reliable content just because other content from the same publication is generally unreliable. feminist (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

But how do you tell which is which? Also: What's the policy basis or rationale of ignoring RS in this matter, as opposed to everything else? François Robere (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliable publishers will clearly distinguish articles written by staff writers, from opinions written by staff, from articles written by contributors. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, that’s the ideal anyway. Unfortunately, in today’s media, too many outlets (including many that we consider reliable) don’t actually distinguish between reporting and opinion. The lines ate blurred. It’s an ongoing problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Renee Ruin

ReneeRuin.com is used as source on four enwiki pages. I found no "ReneeRuin" or "Renee Ruin" on any project page (hopefully including the WP:RS archives). Renee Ruin: Australia's Queen Of The Night Interviewed and other uses showing up in a google search aren't clear, is this source good enough to confirm two appearances in notable fashion magazines? The issue popped up in a GA review, and putting it mildly I'm no expert wrt fashion topics. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Just another blog, so no.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Diff, thanks. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Is Good.is reliable?

Good Worldwide good.is? Emass100 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

To what end? Their https://goodmediagroup.com/About page doesn't seem to make it clear that there is editorial oversight, nor does their https://goodmediagroup.com/Terms-of-Service page. As a general source, I wouldn't use it. What exactly are you thinking it could be used for? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, the article in question is Kyle Kulinski, a YouTuber. We are currently discussing on the talk page whether details of his political positions are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. His notability is primarily due to his progressive politics, but there has been little discussion of the details of his political stances in reliable sources. --valereee (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
In this instance, https://www.good.is/features/kyle-kulinski-sanders-trump is the link being used.
It is written by Eric Pfeiffer who is listed on the contributors page: https://www.good.is/contributors/eric-pfeiffer
That source is being used to support the statement that Kulinski is, "an affiliate of The Young Turks network", which I think it satisfies.
I do not, however, see any editorial oversight or any process for publishing retractions or corrections, so I wouldn't offer a blanket "reliable" to the source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, the basic question we're arguing is whether coverage in that source (which I agree is likely-reliable for asserting that he's an affiliate of The Young Turks) also proves that the details of his political stances are noteworthy enough to be covered. I'm arguing that if the details of his political stances (whether he's pro-choice, pro-LBGTQ+, etc.) were noteworthy, they'd be getting coverage in reliable sources, which they aren't. They're only getting covered in sources like Good.is and similar. Good.is may be in fact reliable for such details, but I think we need more to prove noteworthiness of those details, and that simply stating he's politically progressive is sufficient coverage of his political stances. Emass100 is arguing that coverage of the details in multiple similar sources shows noteworthiness, and that we should include. --valereee (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

E! Online for I Admit (R. Kelly song)

Fox News redux

Patents as reliable sources?

The Washington Times

Back again for POV pushing/ownership issues regarding War bonnet and Order of the Arrow

World Population Review

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI