Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Newslinger in topic World of Kamon/家紋World (harimaya.com/kamon) for Karita clan
Archive 250←Archive 255Archive 256Archive 257Archive 258Archive 259Archive 260

Fox News

Latest comment: 5 years ago125 comments37 people in discussion

Consistent with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail, I propose that Fox News should be taken in the same category.

A review of the site's mainpage today shows that not one story carried is anything other than an opinion piece, but none of them are actually marked as "opinion" (or the other category that reliable news organizations sometimes use, "analysis") as such on the link. Primary story at the moment: "It just got worse" (captioned under a picture of James Comey) GREGG JARRETT: Want more proof of FBI corruption? Read thisIT JUST GOT WORSE MARK PENN: How 'Deep State' is worse than feared"

Secondary story showing: "Millenial Mouthpiece (captioned under a picture of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) MICHAEL KNOWLES: Ocasio-Cortez, the voice of an ignorant generation"

Historically, Fox News has major factual accuracy problems and fails often to issue appropriately placed and prompt corrections in addition to the site's constant failure to clearly identify editorial/opinion content as such. For instance, the Politifact file on statements from Fox News indicates that less than half of the analyzed statements were at least "mostly true". (https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/) Much like other sources which Wikipedia deems irredeemably problematic with facts, Fox News was not created for the purpose of news, but for the purpose of blatant propagandizing (see: https://www.newsweek.com/roger-ailes-television-revolution-and-his-decision-changed-american-politics-612176, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-244652/, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-roger-ailes-polarized-tv-news/). In modern times Fox employees leaving the company have described the "news" room as "like an extension of the Trump White House." (https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/31/media/fox-news-employees-russia-mueller-coverage/index.html)

Their current attacks on the FBI & various investigations read very much like their approach to the Seth Rich conspiracy theory that they promoted out of known-unreliable white supremacist sources such as Daily Caller and Gatewaypundit.

What’s notable in that is how unapologetic the language of the retraction is—both considering the length of time the story was allowed to remain on Fox’s site, and even more especially because of the speed and the volume at which it was amplified. That’s in one way unsurprising: The story that was framed as evidence of the mainstream media’s collusion had become, in fact, evidence of the mainstream media’s restraint. The story whose subtext was the mainstream media’s inherent untrustworthiness had proven its real subtext to be the opposite.

And it took days to obtain even that terse retraction.

On Friday, a day after it first published the comments suggesting Rich’s connection to WikiLeaks—from Rod Wheeler, the former detective who had been hired by the family to investigate his death—the Fox affiliate clarified its story, writing, “What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.”

The story on Fox remained. It retained its chorus-like status. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/fox-seth-rich/527850/)

The largest problem with Fox News, its website and content remain that Fox deliberately obfuscates the line between actual news reporting and editorial content such as "opinion" or "analysis", either by failing to clearly mark the editorial content or by mixing the editorial content into the news reporting (such as this article on Ken Ham's "ark encounter" theme park which mixes in a majority of editorial content and fails to adhere to basic editorial standards such as requesting a statement from all parties mentioned https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/ken-ham-offers-free-admission-to-schools-after-atheist-group-warns-against-ark-encounter-field-trips). This leads to editors repeatedly trying to insert problematic content into Wikipedia, claiming that since Fox News has been called a "reliable source" by a subset of editors that the editorial content that dominates Fox's website and programming and continually leaks into its purported news content is somehow reliable and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Fox News has been discussed many, many times, including within the last year. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fox_News for more information. While consensus can change, these discussions should not be blindly ignored. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
A review of the site's mainpage today shows that not one story carried is anything other than an opinion piece, but none of them are actually marked as "opinion" (or the other category that reliable news organizations sometimes use, "analysis") as such on the link. Nearly every major news site does this, it is approach called "opinionated journalism" that is designed to help humanize some news stories. (see this opinion from NYTimes from 2008, as this practice does go back a ways). FOX News may use it more frequently than others, but using that blurring between news and opinion cannot be a reason to eliminate a source as reliable, otherwise we'd have to start knocking off several major sources. As noted above, FOX has been discussed a lot, and there are certain analysts associated with the network that should be avoided but when they are covering news, they are generally factual and show journalistic integrity. Just like with any other RS, if they make contentious claims towards a person or group, that should be corroborated with a different RS before including. --Masem (t) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it’s OK to use as a source their actual news hosts. Problem is, their website. I look in a couple times a week and it’s more than slanted. It still regularly attacks Hillary Clinton, even though the election ended two years ago. But then, they’ve been regularly attacking the Clintons for 20 years. Nothing wrong with negative stories. It’s just that it’s constant. Their current bugaboo is Ocasio-Cortez, who they have been attacking constantly and she’s only been in office eleven days, using the words Communist and ignorant to characterize her generation in the first sentence. They also constantly attack the FBI, claiming again today that there is proof they are corrupt and claiming that there is a deep state, a clandestine government made up of hidden or covert networks of power operating independently of a nation's political leadership. Then there are all the stories of crimes, nearly all committed by folks with darker skin. Yesterday the top two stories attacked Democrats and the FBI. Day before, again attacked the FBI with a pic of Comey and the tag “Total Sleaze”. Previous day, attacked CNN and Ocasio-Cortez. Day before, top story attacked a Democratic donor. Problem is, if you can’t trust the website, where do you source their news hosts? O3000 (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Even those sources in the left, particularly CNN, seem to open up on a full page of Trump attacks from their website, their news broadcasting a bit toned down. That's not to say that CNN and others try to fact check moreso before slinging mud, but they still sling it when they can. This is what opinionated journalism gives up, particularly when we have the open conflict between Trump and the press. I'll stress as I've elsewhere that WP's best defense against this is to keep RECENTISM in mind: we should not be trying to document the mudslinging but wait for that to die down and see if there's anything of reasonable value to report. (eg, at this point, we should be able to fairly write about FOX's attacks on Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign without having to engage in the day-to-day mudslinging that went down). For FOX or CNN or any other source, if we keep ourselves away from the bickering and only report on objective, major news points, we'd not really have to worry about this approach FOX does or CNN does or the like. --Masem (t) 16:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Trump is the POTUS. It makes perfect sense for CNN to report heavily on the shutdown as it affects vast numbers of people. Question is, why does the Fox News site ignore such an enormous story? The only mention today was: “Dems vacationing during shutdown”. It’s not a story about the shutdown; It’s a story about Democrats in Puerto Rico. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, expect, the CNN front page has one headline in the lede that is about the shutdown, the rest seems focused on the report relating Trump and Russian involvement. But the point is not so much what the front page of these sites are, just their general overall impression: FOX verbally attacks Democrats and the press that support them and ignores the problematic aspects around Trump, CNN attacks Trump and his close allies, and tent to treat Democrats with high respect regardless of what they do. That divide is fine; the whole point is when you strip away the verbal attacks and opinions, are the core news elements reliable? For CNN, that's not really of any question, whereas with FOX we do have to be careful of whom is doing the reporting as they do have a few people in bylines that tend to exaggerate on facts. Not enough to make all of FOX unreliable at that level, but just caution to be used particularly on BLP and contentious subjects. --Masem (t) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Setting aside the "both-sides-ism" problems with your argument Masem you are drawing massively false comparisons. If you look at CNN's headlines on the front page, they clearly label links with "Analysis:" and "Opinion:" to delineate the factual-reporting articles (such as "Trump lashed out at Mulvaney during meeting with Democrats", an article of factual reporting that also provides a link to the initial sourcing from Axios) from clear opinion pieces (such as "Analysis: The question Trump still hasn't answered" and "Opinion: America's week of zero"). The issue is Fox's either deliberate decision to, or utter inability to, clearly differentiate editorial from factual content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk)
Is that actually a problem? PackMecEng (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
CNN may be more rigorous here, but other sites have news reports that include opinion and analysis but are not given a byline of such - that's what opinionated journalism (or as the AP puts it, "accountability journalism") does. That it happens does not make a source suddenly unreliable, but for us at WP we just need to be more careful about such reports. If an apparent "news" piece includes something that is clearly opinion of the journalist, we should make sure to treat it as opinion or analysis, whether that's CNN or FOX or NYtimes. --Masem (t) 17:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, CNN ran a negative story about Democrat Tulsi Gabbard today and yesterday and has numerous stories having nothing to do with politics. And yes, I think it does make a difference if you fail to mark stories analysis or opinion. I’m not trying to defend CNN. The Fox News site is simply not a reliable news site, unless the FBI really is a sleazy organization trying to overthrow the gov’t, millennials are ignorant communists, and nearly all crime is caused by immigrants. Their actual news programs are usable. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Masem put it better than I did. It is more about us being diligent and confirming the distinction. Not well labeled is not a reason to exclude a source. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a story on FOX's front page about the FBI [1]. I read through that, it seems "objective" in that there's seemingly no opinion from the journalist that wrote it, so that's completely a usable piece (if we had to use it). Yes, it is written slightly in a tone that favors Trump, but that's not changing its reliability. And its certainly corroborating stories from other RSes (eg WaPost CNBC). So we can evaluate stories on FOX's website and find they are reliable for fact. From my experience, those stories on FOX's website that are unlabeled opinion are really really easy to pick out. For example, this is clearly more opinion/analysis due to the conversational tone it takes despite lacking the byline of "opinion" or "analysis". That's something that if in question can be handled in talk page consensus. --Masem (t) 18:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, I think it is OK to use Fox News. I just think folks should be warned about using the site, or they’ll add to the Millennials article that millennials are ignorant communists. O3000 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Basic question, which I don't see answered above. Per Reliable sources:News organizations: "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest." Do we have these signals in Fox News' case, or not? Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Dimadick that's precisely the problem. For instance if you check the (opinion) article "GREGG JARRETT: Want more proof of FBI corruption? Read this", the frontpage does not indicate that it is an opinion piece (as opposed to CNN where every opinion piece is clearly labeled "OPINION:" in the link text). And the Jarrett piece - like every Fox opinion column - does not include a standard "The views expressed in this commentary are their own" disclaimer anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk • contribs)
That the front page or other headline-listing page does not list it as opinion, but it is labeled as an opinion column on the actual article itself is fully acceptable. That's definitely not a reason to ding FOX as unreliable because they don't consistently make sure links to opinion pieces are noted as opinions. --Masem (t) 19:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You're ignoring the point in bold, but I kind of expected that after reading your other comments now.
Are you sure you are not looking at the opinion page? When I go to the main page I find only news articles. The article "JUST GOT WORSE MARK PENN: How 'Deep State' is worse than feared" is clearly labelled as "opinion."[2] TFD (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't find anything equivalent to NYTimes errata pages, but they do have a policy of requesting corrections [3] and they clearly have made voluntary corrections to stories based on third-party sources when searching "fox news corrections". How thorough they are is hard to tell but they do seem to have it. --Masem (t) 18:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Deprecate it Fox news is at the forefront of a movement in inaccurate and biased news so dire that there's a whole genre of articles talking about the detrimental impact of Fox on its regular viewers. If something can only be sourced to Fox it's not notable. If something has any other sources, then there are better sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Cite opinions as opinions As ever - the idea that the sources any group does not "like" should be "deprecated" is an extraordinarily bad slope for Wikipedia in the first place. And the fact is that Fox News as a channel handles both opinion and straight journalism and is in precisely the same category as ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN. If we remove all "wrong thought" from Wikipedia, the issue is clear - those who would remove all "wrong thought" are actually ignoring the concept of WP:NPOV from the get-go. Collect (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you may have misinterpreted my intention. And to be clear, I don't actually like ABC, NBC, CBC, MSNBC or CNN. In fact I'd be tempted to deprecate CNN as well. At play here are two factors, one which I'll admit is a personal bug-bear but not in the direction you may be expecting:
  1. Wikipedia is too dependent on newsmedia. I say this a lot. I'm pretty serious about it. I don't believe we're able to properly adjudicate WP:LASTING when people jump on WP:SIGCOV based on an immediate reaction from the 24 hour news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS has become something of a joke as a result.
  2. Fox is less reliable than the average news source. As has been shown below by MastCell in some detail, Fox has a pattern of inaccurate reporting that would be concerning even without the ideological baggage. So when I say that it should be deprecated, it's not because it's a Republican rag. It's because it's a rag of any sort. And we shouldn't be using them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a discussion of "wrong thought" or any such talk radio buzzword. It's a simple matter of two primary requirements of reliable journalism: to (A) engage truthfully with due diligence, editorial control and fact-checking of their journalistic content and (B) to in good faith make sure that editorial/opinion/analysis content is clearly labeled as such. These are the same factors in which the Daily Mail failed and in my view Fox has routinely failed at them as well, to the point of not being reliable without having to check against other sources - which as Simonm223 above pointed out means there are then better sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk • contribs)
Your "B" is not a requirement of our RS policy. --Masem (t) 19:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
As a matter of common sense, any reasonable person would expect a reliable source to clearly differentiate factual reporting from opinion pieces. (If you can't be sure whether a reported item is intended to be factual or simply an unsubstantiated opinion, then how can you confidently use a source?) But even as a legalistic policy nitpick, you're wrong: WP:NEWSORG covers the distinction between factual reporting and opinion, and the need to handle them differently—which presumes that reliable sources draw such a distinction. MastCell Talk 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in NEWSORG says that a RS must identify an article as a news report or as opinion. Only that we only use news reports for factual information, and present opinions as opinions. And we have to recognize that not every work is going to have bylines. We sometimes have to use WP editorial review to determine if an article without a byline is meant to be taken as news or opinion, even moreso now in the age of opinionated journalism which blurs the lines. (for example, an unmarked opinionated piece from the NYTimes today) It's not that hard to tell the difference between an article written to present a journalistic tone versus a conversation tone (a strong sign of an opinionated or analysis piece), and it should be very obvious when it is contentious claims towards anyone being treated as blatant fact that we've found an opinionated piece rather than journalism. Mind you, much of this concern goes away if we have more editors respecting NOTNEWS and RECENTISM - what the press thinks in the short term has little encyclopedic value until that itself is part of a news event (as for example in the case of FOX and Seth Rich). --Masem (t) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You raise some good points Masem. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Sites like the Daily Mail and InfoWars don't just make occasional errors or exhibit editorial bias, they're completely uninterested in reporting news, and what little they offer in terms of original reporting is vastly outweighed by the huge risk that any story they publish could be wildly inaccurate. Fox News certainly has problems, but there is still some faction within the organization that is dedicated to accurate reporting. They issue retractions (even if they're half-assed) when they get things wrong, they hire actual journalists, they have a set of editorial standards. Users should always be cautious with any source, but deprecating Fox News would mean getting rid of a lot of good quality reporting. Nblund talk 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

FoxNews is a perennial topic here, and I don't think the question is as simple as a yes or no, despite the usual reflexive both-sidesism. Leaving aside the opinion material and focusing on the news operation, FoxNews clearly inhabits a more respectable place on the spectrum compared to partisan lie factories like InfoWars or Breitbart. On the other hand, there is ample reason to question whether FoxNews has an adequate reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to qualify, under site policy, as a reliable source. There have been a disturbing number of incidents in which FoxNews has reported something—inevitably something which serves a partisan political goal—only to have the item in question turn out to be false. And not merely false, but so obviously false than any competent journalistic outfit would not have run it in the first place. A few examples:

  • Less than a week before the 2016 Presidential election, Fox News published a bombshell report indicating that Hillary Clinton's email server had been hacked by "five foreign intelligence agencies", and that the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation had found evidence of wrongdoing which would result in Clinton's indictment. Both statements served to amplify Trump campaign talking points, and were presented as news, not opinion. Both were completely false. And the false reporting stemmed from poor journalistic practices, as outlined in this summary from the Washington Post.
  • Fox's role in covering the murder of Seth Rich has been widely described, and raises serious questions about its journalistic credibility. FoxNews published a phony story which fueled conspiracy theories (many of which were advanced here, on Wikipedia, by editors citing FoxNews as a "reliable source"). The private investigator hired by FoxNews to push the story later claimed that FoxNews was operating a coordinated effort with the White House to smear the murder victim (Rich) and to "shift the blame from Russia." In an ensuing legal case, the judge found that FoxNews and the PI had "embarked on a collective effort to support a sensational claim regarding Seth Rich’s murder", thus "perpetuating a politically motivated story not having any basis in fact." (see PBS, New York Times).
  • An interesting forensic analysis of fake news demonstrated how quickly and credulously FoxNews picked up and ran with phony Russian propaganda (see coverage in Atlanta Journal-Constitution).
  • More general questions about the credibility of FoxNews have accumulated (e.g. "Fox hit with new charges to its credibility", AP), and several FoxNews hosts have quit the channel out of frustration that hard-news reporting has been marginalized in favor of a "relentless blind defense of Trump" (see Politico).
  • As far back as 2012, The Atlantic summarized a number of false stories on FoxNews, with the false stories focusing on unsurprising targets: Muslim nations, PETA, Sarah Palin critics, transgender individuals, Barack Obama, etc. ([4]).

While even the most reliable sources make occasional errors, this pattern of publishing and promoting partisan falsehoods is distinctly different from anything that our typical high-quality sources engage in. As a result, I think it would be incredibly irresponsible to treat FoxNews as an entirely reliable source for matters of fact, particularly when those matters involve incredible or "bombshell" claims, living people, or partisan talking points. And if a claim appears only in FoxNews, and not in more reliable sources, then it should be treated very skeptically. As a reminder, with regard to the Seth Rich case, a number of editors here played a role in promoting a false conspiracy theory that caused real harm and suffering to the family of a murder victim. It happened because they treated FoxNews as a reliable source, despite evidence to the contrary. They should have known better then, and I don't think there's any excuse now. MastCell Talk 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that very well-written summation of issues. A few more things might need adding to it:
≥Fox News's deliberate use of conspiracy theories against the accuser(s) of Brett Kavanaugh: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fox-news-kavanaugh-727504/
≥Fox News's habit of picking up falsified stories by credulously using as sources "bridging sites", in effect source-laundering, and ignoring the journalistic responsibility to fact-check claims by "passing the buck" and merely "reporting what the bridging sites are saying". https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/conservative-media-fox-brietbart-infowars/
≥Our data repeatedly show Fox as the transmission vector of widespread conspiracy theories. The original Seth Rich conspiracy did not take off when initially propagated in July 2016 by fringe and pro-Russia sites, but only a year later, as Fox News revived it when James Comey was fired. The Clinton pedophilia libel that resulted in Pizzagate was started by a Fox online report, repeated across the Fox TV schedule, and provided the prime source of validation across the right-wing media ecosystem. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/11/06/blame-fox-not-facebook-for-fake-news/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.677e6afe132f) - Yochai Benkler, interviewed about the Harvard research book Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics.
I invite others to add anything else that might have been missed here involving the pattern of conduct on the part of Fox News. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks—I find these discussions more useful when they're data-focused, rather than just a hodgepodge of random opinions. I chose to stick to unimpeachably reliable sources in my summary, mostly because I don't feel like opening a second argument about whether Rolling Stone or the Daily Dot are reliable when they criticize Fox's reliability. That said, the book by Benkler et al. is an excellent academic summary of the issue, and underscores the problem: FoxNews amplifies right-wing falsehoods, and sometimes even originates them, to an extent that should make any responsible editor think twice about using it as a source here. In fact, that book should probably be used as a source for our article on FoxNews, as high-quality academic sources are relatively lacking there. MastCell Talk 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
A book by New York Times journalists about the (becoming less credible as time goes by) sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh: [5]. Who is being biased here? wumbolo ^^^ 20:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Your link and comment add nothing to an understanding of whether FoxNews is or is not a reliable source. If you don't have anything constructive to add, please don't post this kind of silly flamebait. It's hard enough to keep a discussion focused here as is. MastCell Talk 20:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is a reply by Donna Halper, a media historian, on Fox's reliability: "Fox News is the media arm of the Republican Party....But having said that, when analyzing Fox News, we must differentiate between the network’s commentators (who generally are not trustworthy) and its reporters (who generally can be trusted)....Fox news reporters....report the news and to try to be accurate....[They] tend to be very reliable and ethical."[6] TFD (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The link directly to her answer is https://www.quora.com/Is-Fox-News-a-reliable-and-unbiased-news-source/answer/Donna-Halpe Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The point I (and the IP) are making above, at length and with numerous supporting citations to reliable published and academic work, is that it's not at all clear that Fox's news reporting can be trusted. If you disagree, please elevate the discussion and bring something more to the table than Quora posts. MastCell Talk 20:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
User:MastCell, sorry, I thought I mentioned it was a post by Donna Halper, a media historian. Halper is an associate professor at Lesley University, where she teaches Media Analysis, Introduction to Communication, and Introduction to Journalism.[7] Previously she taught journalism at the University of Massachusetts Boston, Amherst and other universities. Do you have any sources of journalism experts commenting on Fox News reporting or are we expected to bow to your superior analysis? BTW, the article, "JUST GOT WORSE MARK PENN: How 'Deep State' is worse than feared" is clearly labelled as opinion. TFD (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If she's a prominent academic, then surely she has better venues than Quora in which to share her views. Cite those. I listed a bunch of published third-party reliable sources—specifically to forestall "that's-just-like-your-opinion-man" responses—and the IP cited a scholarly book published by the Oxford University Press and written by three prominent academics. A Quora post, no matter whose, is not a comparable source. MastCell Talk 22:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUBLISH "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." -- --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Erm... so you believe that a professor's Quora post carries comparable weight to third-party reliable sources and published scholarly treatises? If so, I'm posting on Quora more often. MastCell Talk 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that outside Wikipedia and Quora, no one is interested in the question of whether or not Fox News is a reliable source. If you have "third-party reliable sources and published scholarly treatises" where someone has answered the question, then please provide them. In the meantime, this is the best source we have that answers the question. TFD (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of high-quality sources addressing FoxNews's reliability, a number of which have been presented in this thread. Hell, Oxford University Press just published a book on the subject, written by three prominent academics. It's just bizarre to insist that a Quora post is the best available source. Bizarre. MastCell Talk 01:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
For at least the first three cases, Fox removed/corrected said stories after their reliability was brought into question. I am not sure/unable to tell if they issued formal errata or made apologies - eg being open about what they did - but still taking down bad articles on notice they are wrong is part of journalistic integrity we want. So on that basis, there's nothing wrong with FOX News.
Now, obviously, that's an absurd statement, but it points to things that need repeating across all sources and topic areas: that NOT#NEWS /RECENTISM tells us to hold off on including "breaking" controversial stories until we can tell what the overall picture is, and that we should seek corroboration to make sure we have the right story. Even if it is a anonymous source reporting through the NYTimes, we should wait to see if that is a story corroborated by another RSes. (See JzG's section above comparing left- versus right-leaning sources).
So the issue is that in the long run, FOX is reliable, albeit for certain specific commentators, in that what stays posted on their site is generally correct. But its those stories that are controversial that they jump on as breaking news based on inside reports with little corroboration which later prove out to be misunderstanding, exaggerations, or bad information given to them that they redact or apologize for that cause the problems, and only because WP editors jump at adding those stories against the advice of NOTNEWS/RECENTISM. If this was better held up across the board, FOX would not be as problematic as being made out here. --Masem (t) 21:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The long-standing consensus is that Fox News is a reliable source. Partisan as it may be, it's still reliable enough that deprecating it would not be very helpful, as we never put up reliable sources for deprecation. SemiHypercube 21:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'd just like to point out that saying "consensus said no in the past therefore we can't re-assess consensus" seems more like a tautology and not a valid argument. The point I propose and that Mastcell has provided ample following sourcing for is that Fox News's standards and conduct have declined enough that it can no longer be deemed reliable. After reading the Daily Mail discussions your same tautology was proposed towards that newspaper, that somehow it remained reliable based on having been reliable once upon a time in the past. But users today are warned against using Daily Mail as a source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail) despite your (incorrect) assertion that "we never put up reliable sources for deprecation". 73.76.213.67 (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    No, I'm saying that while consensus can change, the previous discussions should be considered, and since the consensus after about 10 discussions is that it's reliable, this could be saying something. Additionally, 73.76.213.67, was this edit done by you, or are you under a shared or dynamic IP? SemiHypercube 23:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewww. Not mine. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Additionally, if you're going to compare Fox News to the Daily Mail, you should probably read this article to see what the you're comparing this to. As noted above, at least Fox News seems to have some interest in actual news reporting and sometimes checks facts. SemiHypercube 23:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support. "Long standing consensus" about any news org isn't set in stone if it's clear the reliability has degraded. I wouldn't be opposed to lowering it a notch at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, that is, make Fox News yellow and Fox News talk shows red. Yellow would be appropriate, as it means use with caution. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fox News obviously has a bias when it comes to political topics, but news quality and accuracy, as well as the pretense of neutrality, have declined considerably across the board in recent times. Other news sources that are regularly used on Wikipedia have the same issues or worse, particularly local news outfits that been reduced to bare minimum staff and now essentially do no fact checking whatsoever. Looking just at bias, there are sources on the other end of the political spectrum that are equally biased, but still widely used throughout Wikipedia without being questioned. The problem needs to be addressed as a whole, without focusing on a single source and instead take on consideration of deprecating many widely used biased sources. Deli nk (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (1) Fox News talk shows should clearly be given a red color on the perennial sources list (and it would be helpful if editors could identify the parts that are just opinion drivel on the Fox News website - for example, 'Fox News Insider' gets frequently cited in Wiki articles and looks like a straight-up news source but it's usually just written-up quotes from what the conspiracy theorists and fringe folks say on the talk shows). (2) The news department has a history of falsehoods and disreputable behavior. The Seth Rich conspiracy nonsense was the obvious instance. Fox News refused to retract that story for days even though it was debunked by multiple other news sources within 24 hours. Fox News also never explained what was wrong with its reporting, something that normal news organizations do when they fuck up stories.[8][9] Normal news outlets also often fire or sanction individuals involved in massive stories that go wrong. The news department also has a bizarre focus, as it ignores the kinds of stories that normal news outlets provide extensive coverage in favor of bizarre non-stories and in-depth in-the-weeds coverage of whatever faux controversy that Republicans have stirred up. I've frequently seen Fox News being used to fill space in various articles on faux controversies about liberals to suggest wrong-doing and scandal where there was none. The Fox News news department should be considered 'generally unreliable' and coverage by Fox should not be considered an indication of WP:DUE given their obsession with stories about liberal non-controversies and absence of stories of actual conservative scandals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Regardless of other points, dinging a source due to what focus it decides to give the news should not be a mark against its RSness. Otherwise, we should ding WSJ for focusing on stories that mostly deal with business, or political stories that affect businesses (which is of course illogical). And of course, if we take obsession over a topic as a problem that would ding CNN and numerous other sources that have solely harped on Trump for the last 3 years, pushing other more serious news to the wayside (which again is illogical). --Masem (t) 22:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • There is a difference between substantive focus and partisan hackery. WSJ has in-depth business coverage, Scientific magazine has in-depth science coverage, and outlets like CNN, Politico and Fox News spend a lot of energy on American politics. What I'm referring to is a lopsided obsession to give in-depth coverage of faux controversies and to exclusively do so when it revolves around one side of the political aisle - which leads to in-the-weeds reporting that insinuates scandal and wrong-doing when there is no substantive basis for it (and this reporting is then used to fill up the Wikipedia pages of these faux controversies - which is a huge problem). And what we're talking about here on this specific point is the news department at these two news outlets. I don't think there is any disagreement that the pundits on both channels (e.g. Don Lemon) should generally not be used for factual reporting. I have no idea what Don Lemon focuses on in his shows, because I don't watch his or any other CNN show, and no one tries to cite him and other CNN pundits in Wikipedia articles. The news department at CNN (and the punditry shows also AFAIK[10]) goes after both sides. The same can not be said about Fox News. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Biased reporting does not say anything about reliability; a point in the Daily Caller discussion above. Biased reporting can lead to problems with reliability, no question, but one has to show that by other means. Just saying a source is biased doesn't directly cause us to say its unreliable. There are proper way of dealing with the rush-to-report-before-getting-facts-straight that FOX does, but that's already ingrained in policy through RECENTISM and other policies as I've described above. --Masem (t) 22:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I and an IP editor both presented evidence, above, that FoxNews is both politically biased and unreliable. My hope was that we'd have a discussion about that evidence, but I've gotten used to disappointment. MastCell Talk 22:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I agree that the challenge here is to show in a clear and convincing way that the bias does lead to reliability problems and to document these reliability problems extremely thoroughly and in great detail. At some point, I might put together the case that the news department at Fox ought to be downgraded in reliability. It's just very time-consuming. In particular, because most of the attention of other RS is on Fox News' opinion content (which makes sense given that this is where most of outrageous stuff is, what most people watch and where the President's informal advisors are), not the straight-news stuff. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I would think MSNBC is a better comparison to Fox than CNN. And. I have never, and probably will never, use MSNBC as a source. But, to my knowledge, MSNBC has never allowed its hosts to approach the irresponsibility of Fox hosts. For example, the most popular Fox host, Hannity, pushing the Pizzagate conspiracy. Think about it. Pushing as real the concept that Hillary and the Democratic Party ran pedophilia clubs in the basement of a pizza joint with no basement. This causes real damage. And, even after it was debunked, and a man shot up the pizza joint to save these mythical kids – he continued to claim on Fox that it was true. I felt sorry for the nut that believed Fox and shot up the restaurant. And the Seth Rich conspiracies. And the continuing claims that the FBI is secretly trying to overthrow the government. And the fact the Fox host recently spoke at a Trump rally. You can say that there is a separation between the news and the conspiratorial hosts. But, the channel is named Fox “News”. You don’t see the Washington Post or The Guardian claiming conspiracy theories about a political party running pedophilia rings or murdering people are true. I can’t take seriously an organization that does such as a source for an encyclopedia; and I think there are plenty of reliable sources without resorting to such. A bridge too far for me. O3000 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
            • In general reply to MastCell, Snooganssnoogans and Objective3000: I personally recognize exactly the issues with FOX news being brought up, that there are several parts of their opinion team and some reporters that rush to present questionable information without the same scrutiny that other RSes generally use, and this gives makes them have to backtrack a lot, redacting articles that are shown to be wrong. They do have a seemingly wreckless approach to reporting. But if you look at what remains in Fox News' archives on general news reporting a month or so after a story has broken, there is generally no issues with their approach; they may be biased to the right, but still cover most situations with a comparable objectivity with other RSes when you factor in any bias that the RSes have. It is their on-the-spot reporting of material they haven't yet corroborated that they feel supports their general support for the GOP/Trump/etc that is a huge problem for WP, as long as we have editors that routinely ignore NOTNEWS/RECENTISM to post these stories the second they drop.
            • In that mindset, we can blame FOX or we can blame WP editors to rush to the point, or both. To me, the problem is more on those editors that rush to add information, which also happens with sources that aren't FOX news too. Editors want to rush to add in accusations made towards people and groups as soon as they are made before giving time for full understanding of the effect of those accusations, for example. And that's just the tip of the iceberg about how we have begun putting too much weight on breaking news sources in controversial topics. This is not a FOX news problem, this is a WP problem. The statements being made here to single out FOX news won't deal with the underlying issue. I'm all for putting as many cavaets on the use of FOX news - make sure information is corroborated if possible; if its highly controversial, definitely wait to see if it even pans out; don't take any stories from certain talking heads there as anything close to reliable, and so forth. But it's burying the real problem of how we exactly should be using current media sources and how we write articles on events and topics still being covered in real time. We should be telling editors to be much more selective and wait and see for all sources, not just single one out that tends to rush to the publishing line with sometimes disastrous results. --Masem (t) 01:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons I stated above. I would point out also that the IP who started the thread began with a false claim about opinion pieces appearing as news stories on the front page. Of the two examples provided, bothnMark Penn's article[11] and the article on Ocassio=Cortez[12] are clearly labelled as opinion. and neither appear on the front page. It would be ironic to ban a news source as unreliable by relying on false information. TFD (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but your claim that the IP made a false claim is incorrect. Both appeared on the front page and were not labeled there as opinion. They were labeled opinion in the articles – but I read both at the time and didn’t notice this in either article. Here’s the web archive link. [13] O3000 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
They are no longer there.[14] I note that despite the IP's comment that "not one story carried is anything other than an opinion piece," in fact the vast majority are news items, which is why I wondered whether the IP had wandered to the opinion page instead. (Since you provided the link you can check yourself.) If you follow the links I provided to the two articles you will see that they are clearly labelled opinion, and that should be clear from the article headlines. Opinion pieces are carried in all mainstream media and are not considered reliable sources. I concede it should have been labelled opinion on the "Hot Topics" page, but don't see how that affects reliability. TFD (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
But, as I demonstrated, they were there. The Fox page constantly changes. Claiming that the OP made a false statement is not wise. The point is that the Fox News main page continually makes demonstrably ludicrous statements not labeled as opinion on that page – where people read it. The primary aim of the Fox News site does not appear to be the furtherance of fact. As I said, we shouldn’t use MSNBC as a reliable source for fact. But, they as far as I can see, don’t approach the conspiracy theorism of Fox. No one there is claiming the Republican party runs pedophilia clubs or anything approaching what Fox News has allowed. I think that both should be avoided, even though MSNBC has, to my knowledge, never made such claims. O3000 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
1) Regardless of the source, headline statements are not to be taken as RSes, so the fact that a headline is factually wrong or misleading has zero weight on the reliability of the source. 2) Whether or not a headline-listing page calls out opinion vs news vs analysis is also immaterial for us. CNN may be sticklers in that labeling, but the NYTimes article I pointed out above as being opinionated reporting [15] is currently listed on the politics page without a statement that it is opinion or analysis. We have to be aware that news or opinion may not be distinguished even by a byline on the article page. That in no way causes the entire reliability of a site to disappear, simply that we have to use extra scrutiny as WP editors to know what a piece should be treated as. Basically, this whole point is a rabbit's trail not demanded anywhere in policy or guidelines. --Masem (t) 01:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
All true, but doesn’t the fact that a site labeling itself as a “news” site allows extreme conspiracy theories, time and again, on its front page give us pause as using them as a source? If something is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, one would expect that it would be published in multiple sources. Let us use those less questionable as opposed to a site that has a reputation of publishing conspiratorial nonsense on its main page and broadcasts on a daily basis. I’m not saying deprecate like The Daily Mail. Although Fox may actually be more dangerous. I’m just saying that WP:5P2 and WP:V demand more of us. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say much of this should "if it smells like BS, we should avoid it, regardless where it came from, until that can be confirmed." FOX news reports that an inside source said Hillary earns $20 gazaillion a day from her investments? Yeah, we should wait to even think about using that source. But same applies to other sources if they are publishing information that appears to be contentious and does not have corroboration. See my reply above about this being more a WP problem than a FOX News problem. --Masem (t) 01:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I don’t think the NYT or WaPo, Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel would publish such on their front pages. And, we have differing olfactory craves. But, it’s been a nice chat, I knew it wouldn’t go anywhere, and I won’t be !voting on this.:) regards, O3000 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Masem let me see if I understand your position correctly. You believe that DESPITE the numerous and egregious counts of non-reliable behavior by Fox News, the small smidgen of actual news content that still exists makes them count as reliable? That despite the entirety of their daily-show spectrum, the mixing of "Fox News Insider" conspiracy nonsense into their "news" content on their website, their failures to properly mark opinion content and to have clear disclaimers that editorial content is the position of the author only and all their other violations, that "Well Shep Smith is still sometimes a journalist so that makes them OK". Does that accurately sum up your position?
Because I wouldn't have said Fox was completely unreliable a couple years ago but it's literally gone beyond the pale now. I think it's ridiculous that we play the game of pretending that Fox has any reliability left when it requires digging up a checklist and triple-checking the URL to make sure that it isn't a false-marked opinion piece from a conservative think-tanker or a "Fox News Insider" piece masquerading as real journalism. Honestly can you provide a list of the "still reliable journalists" you say are at Fox that would require even two hands to count, let alone taking off my socks? 73.76.213.67 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in our RS criteria requires a source's website to have clear, unmistakable lines between news and opinion. We'd prefer it if sites did this, but it is by no means a requirement. And I'm having a hard time finding any article on FOX that reads as opinion or analysis that isn't marked as opinion or analysis in the article's byline - as I point out above, other sources do often publish opinionated reported (which mix news and opinion) without an opinion byline, so even if FOX does it, we can't ding FOX for that and not ding others.
Looking at articles that are at least a month old and outside anything one would consider a controversial area, there seems to be little question to FOX's accuracy and reliability. Even their political news (not opinion) seems correct, just with a GOP-bent. Those articles seem to be mostly done by those that aren't the onscreen personalities of FOX News, but the actual journalists they have.
And to stress a key part of the Daily Mail case: DM was found to absolutely fabricating news as well as opinion. This is different from jumping on a few anonymous tips and running with them - fabrication is outright beyond the pale. We know FOX will latch on to inside tips and exaggerate their relative importance until the tips are proven wrong, but that's not fabrication of news. To me that just means, don't use FOX news for breaking news that seems controversial and which only is corroborated by FOX news. But that's true for any source, in the first place. --Masem (t) 15:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Masem, FoxNews was also found to be fabricating news. They concocted and promoted a phony, politically motivated conspiracy theory around an innocent murder victim (Seth Rich). A judge found that FoxNews and its partners had "embarked on a collective effort to support a sensational claim regarding Seth Rich’s murder... perpetuating a politically motivated story not having any basis in fact." That's actually an order of magnitude worse than anything that the Daily Mail has done, to my knowledge. I'm confused by the contradiction between your stated criteria for reliability and your ongoing defense of FoxNews as a reliable source. MastCell Talk 18:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There's a big gap between perpetuating a conspiracy theory, and factually making up a story. Certainly, not saying was Fox did report on was ethically or morally right, but they weren't creating falsehoods, but instead trying to overanalyze, find links that don't exist or can't prove, etc. Ultimate they did backoff and apologize for the story and did face legal penalties, but it wasn't anything akin to a fabricated story. And yes, other RSes jump on this too, though as pointed out by JzG's analysis above, they are usually going to verify all sourcing to make sure they don't end up with egg on their face. But any time documents that mention "Trump" and "Russia" come out of the various intelligence agencies, the media jumps on this - they aren't reporting anything made up, but their analysis teams are doing the same red-string pulling to try to figure out where that fits into the whole puzzle. But that's where recognizing the difference between news and opinion/analysis reporting is important. --Masem (t) 18:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
So it is your belief that a reliable source can knowingly promote and perpetuate phony conspiracy theories, as long as it doesn't originate them? MastCell Talk 18:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As long as it is recognized that this is not a practice limited to FOX News (just that the example of how FOX dealt with the Rich story above is one of the most egregious cases, and far more intense than the type of perpetuating that happens from left-leaning sources), and that when any RS promotes such material without corroboration, that we should absolutely avoid including it or least making sure it is not presented as fact if it must be included, until more clarity and corroboration is known. WP editor are not stupid: we should be able to avoid using any source that is promoting unsubstantiated BS on the basis of RS, NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. Doesn't make the whole source promoting it bad, just that we should apply more caution. For FOX news, that means that, say, 10% of their stories are something we should really pay attention to for problems, whereas that number goes does to 1-2% for NYTimes, CNN, etc. Whereas the DM, that number is easily closer to 25-50%, putting much of what they print into doubt. --Masem (t) 19:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm unconvinced by the discussion and examples above that anything has changed since the last time this was discussed and consensus was not to deprecate Fox News as a source. Gnome de plume (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as with any news outlet, individual reports can be deemed factually inaccurate (and thus unreliable) without needing to call the entire outlet unreliable. Fox’s analysis and opinion coverage is often quite biased (common in today’s media) but its actual news reporting is, on the whole, accurate. Massem’s comments about recentism are also very relevant. Fox does correct itself when a flawed report goes out. Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It would be best to avoid Fox News for political opinions, but even though that's the kind of thing everyone likes to talks about, Fox is a news source that presents non-political (or less political) news really no differently than other news outlets. For example, I see that Fox News' current top world news story now about a Polish mayor being stabbed is not significantly different from CNN's coverage of the same topic. I don't see any reason to avoid using one of those stories as a reference for facts about the event compared to the other. Edgeweyes (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose CNN, NYTimes and the Amazon Post are as unreliable as any news sources out there, having to retract their "stories" countless times due to hasty needs to get to print, poor oversight and lack of integrity. They constantly slam anything not towing the left wing agenda, CNN in fact looks like an attack site designed to malign anything that isn't left wing biased. Journalism as a rule is going to be dominated by the left as journalism is a liberal arts discipline, attracting creative writers, zealots and agenda driven POV pushers. But nothing beats watching them trash each other![16], [17], [18], [19], the Amazon Post has only endorsed democratic Presidential candidates since 1976.--MONGO (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You do realize that Amazon is not connected with the Washington Post? O3000 (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
To Mongo: Your Fallacy Is False Equivalence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence), with a side order of BothSidesIsm (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bothsidesism). If I didn't know better from a quick review of your edit history I'd think you were a "Poe" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law). Particularly egregious in demonstrating lack of good faith in your comment is your insistence on the slur/slander/sneerword (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) term "Amazon Post". Well, that and the obvious lack of english grammatical skill you display as the expression is "toeing", not "towing" the line. In fact, I think I could point to your comment here as a good example of the sort of behavior that rogue, entirely-unreliable outlets such as the Daily Caller and Fox News engender by spreading just said slanders and nonsense as you are repeating here. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering here are some edits that make me think Mongo is not a "Poe" and is in fact just incompetent:
≥(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=877920303) ranting about "a bunch of far left zealots"
≥(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=877741997) I mean this is barely coherent speech.
≥In truth basically everything contained in this thread (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Proud_to_shut_down_the_government) In truth pretty much everything here, including the sections MrX had to shut down directly. It's pretty patently obvious here that Mongo isn't interested in facts in this matter, just attacking anyone he believes is "towing the left wing agenda" or some other nonsensical slur. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Cute...I don't recall attacking you directly and the fact that you attack me directly proves you must feel defensive. Now where I have seen a named editor who has spent this much time slamming FoxNews...sure looks familiar.--MONGO (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I just don't think anyone who rants with slurs like "Amazon Post", "towing[sic] the left wing agenda", "a bunch of far left zealots" or maligns respected news agencies as "zealots and agenda driven POV pushers" is engaging in good faith and the basic competence required of this encyclopedia. Conservapedia's at a different web address and I understand their standards are more on the level you're displaying... 73.76.213.67 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
You should have stopped at "I just don't think"...as that would be correct in summarizing your editing history...perhaps you'd like to tell us what your username is?--MONGO (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And you vandalize more articles like you did here and here I'll move swiftly to get your IP blocked, troll.--MONGO (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I was asked about the first one above and that's not mine. I'll happily state the same regarding the second. However, since you apparently have a lack of ability to engage civilly (as demonstrated by your calling me a "troll" and "vandalizing troll" in your edit summaries as well as your deliberately-provocative removal of a comment I left on another page) I will not engage with you further. I'm hopeful you will realize how you are behaving and apologize, but I'm doubtful. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I was born in the morning but not yesterday morning. So you expect us to believe that the talkpage comment you made here today "It seems that Pat Buchanan has a long history of anti-semitism" is unrelated to this, changing a persons last name from Cortez to KKKortez and this calling the person an "anti-semite" and this are from a completely different person who makes the same arguments and uses the same IP? Bullshit.--MONGO (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Most news is now little more then opinion dressed up as fact. Fox is about as bad as it comes like this, and in many ways the DM is just aping Fox in print.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Their news side meets every part of WP:RS. The issue of some not being able to tell their news side from commentary is something to deal with here, not ban or deprecate. While false balance is being thrown around a lot, it is a valid argument. To say Fox is unique compared to their peers is not correct. Also a long the lines of getting things wrong and having to put up corrects or retractions. That is what you want from a RS, they should do that when they make a mistake and is part of what makes them a RS at all. No source gets everything right but a RS makes corrections when they are wrong. We just need to make sure we separate their news side from their opinion side, which is getting harder everywhere. You see discussions all the time with most sources asking if the article is news or opinion. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Maybe even snow close. All news media is biased. That does not equate to unreliability in any way. "Fox News talk shows" should be considered as some "political" point of view, vetted, and used when there is balance. I would have to look at CNN or CNBC (etc..) talk shows but likely they will be extremely biased in the view of the host, that will likely lean towards the particular media's stance. Otr500 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think a line needs to be drawn between "Organizations with a clear bias in their editorial content, but which still do actual journalism" and "Organizations which don't do any actual journalism". I think Fox's editorial stance on most issues is abbhorant, and many of their broadcast programs are rage-u-tainment for the right, with little valuable journalism there, but we shouldn't be citing any of that shit anyways. Insofar as Fox does seem to have an actual news department reporting actual news, I don't think an outright ban on using it is needed. We should never use their opinion pieces as equivalent to actual investigative journalism, but unlike the Daily mail, they seem to do real journalism. I am unconcerned with how the marketing of FoxNews affects how they choose to organize their website, but rather mostly on whether or not I can trust the journalism to be reliable. Insofar as it exists there, it's fine. I've not seen where the journalism wing of FoxNews has the sort of rampant disregard for actual investigation or as DM does... --Jayron32 16:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Jayron, I've already said way too much in this thread and I don't want to badger you, but I respect your opinion and I wanted to follow up. What's your view of Fox's role in the Seth Rich case (for instance)? I've presented a bunch of links/cites above, but briefly, Fox's news operation (not opinion) concocted and promoted a phony, politically motivated conspiracy theory smearing an innocent murder victim. And this wasn't the work of one bad apple, like Jayson Blair, but an organized institutional effort and a sustained violation of basic journalistic norms. I've outlined other extraordinary lapses in my original post above, but the Rich case alone should give anyone pause when it comes to Fox's news operation, at least in my opinion. I'm curious whether you agree. MastCell Talk 18:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The appropriateness of using Fox News as a reference should be evaluated on a case by case basis, just like other news sources. TimBuck2 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    ...which is basically an argument for deprecating it from green to yellow. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    So you feel all news outlets should be yellow? PackMecEng (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Fox news should be considered default-unreliable, per the compelling arguments put forward in Network Propaganda. However, the bar is lower than it is for the Daily Mail as there are genuinely good journalists at Fox (Shep Smith, for example) and the website is less shitty than the cable channel. I don't really know how to handle that in a blanket guideline, but I do know that the howls of rage we got when the Mail was blacklisted would be as nothing to the abuse and vandalism we'd get for blacklisting Fox. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    @JzG: Huh. Wasn't expecting you to oppose deprecating Fox News. You also do bring up a good point of how deprecating Fox would be practically opening Pandora's box to Wikipedia, we'd receive so much vandalism and abuse. SemiHypercube 21:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, neither was I. I think this is a case for discretion with the default being to exclude. Fox was always biased - it was founded, after all, by Roger Ailes, because he believed the real villains of Watergate were the Washington Post - but there is decent evidence that they were pushing back against the far right fake news / bullshit agenda until 2016, some parts of Fox still do that, and while they have clearly moved tot he right to take back market share after Breitbart started eating their lunch, their reportage still has the potential not to be irredeemably bad. I feel this would be a Rubicon for Wikipedia, and one we are not yet ready to cross. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. With the exception of Shep Smith (consistently good) and Chris Wallace (he occasionally dares to do a good job), Fox News should be deprecated for politics. Those two hosts are the rare exception which proves the rule. The other hosts are abominable and totally unreliable.
We don't save a source because only two out of a dozen+ of its hosts are good.
As noted above, Fox employees leaving the company have described the "news" room (not just any room) "like an extension of the Trump White House."[20] The situation is worse now, to the point where the influence of Fox News and Fox & Friends on Trump and the GOP cannot be ignored. The tail is wagging the dog:

"Fox News is no longer the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News." -- David Atkins[1]

Deprecate it, which is not a total ban. When Smith and Wallace are accurate, they can still be used for politics. (The rest of the hosts should be blacklisted for politics.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
For our purposes, "The Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News" actually doesn't sound as bad as "Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party". The former statement simply means that one of the US's two major political parties rely on Fox News when formulating their positions, it doesn't make them biased. It makes Fox News sound like The New Republic in its heyday. Not to mention, the reliability (or lack thereof) of Fox News's political coverage says nothing about its reliability on other topics. feminist (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Atkins, David (December 22, 2018). "The Ann Coulter Shutdown Has Begun". Washington Monthly. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  • Snoppose per Jayron32: ...a line needs to be drawn between "Organizations with a clear bias in their editorial content, but which still do actual journalism" and "Organizations which don't do any actual journalism". Fox News is on one side of the line, Daily Mail is on the other. For every major mistake made by Fox News, I'll show you one made by CNN. For every 5, I'll show you one by NYT or WaPo. All news is biased, all news makes mistakes; reliability doesn't mean flawless. Levivich (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So you are asserting that you can find a case in which a judge ruled that CNN had " "embarked on a collective effort to support a sensational claim regarding [a] murder... perpetuating a politically motivated story not having any basis in fact."? Your claims of parity aren't supportable by the evidence, thus you have a false equivalence on your hands. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • But this isn't about ordinary bias or occasional mistakes. This is about constant deception and propaganda. Your whataboutism and false equivalence really don't cut it here. Just as Trump is in a class of his own for record-setting dishonesty, Fox News is in a class of its own, as it's primarily a propaganda network which occasionally gets it right, and inexplicably doesn't fire Shep Smith for not following the party line. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It is very interesting how Fox News's defenders tend to use some variant of a "liberal media conspiracy theory" argument and insist that Fox News's falsification problems are somehow comparable to a large set of other, far more reliable news outlets combined. I mean, I suppose I could take the Daily Enquirer and if I stacked up enough other newspapers and channels I could probably make a claim similar, but it relies on a simple false premise because it's comparing raw numbers of incidents rather factoring the rate and egregiousness.
If you are trying to claim that Fox News is somehow reliable because you can add up a number of retracted errors from CNN, NYT, Washington Post and some other number of outlets compared to one SINGLE outlet (Fox), you have already lost your argument because you've demonstrated that Fox has an enormously sized incident rate compared to the industry. In essence you've demonstrated precisely why Fox needs to be viewed as unreliable because its incident rate for unreliability is so egregious.
However, this exercise is demonstrative of part of the problem with the news ecosystem. REAL news outlets compete with each other on a level playing field. Fox News, since it was founded as a propaganda outlet and not a true news organization, takes the tactic of attacking the reliable news organizations as a whole, pitting themselves in a "Fox vs Everyone Else" battle that their adherents then mirror in discussions like this one. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone reading this was confused by my comment, I didn't say "combined." Fox News is about on par with CNN–both are cable television stations that also print stuff on the web–but below real newspapers like NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LATimes, Boston Globe, etc. Second-tier media like Fox and CNN have generally been considered reliable and should continue to be. It's not top-tier journalism, but it is journalism. Levivich? ! 07:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have found Fox Business to be reliable. But Fox News must be taken with a large grain of salt, and probably should be deprecated, especially if inflammatory or if contradicted by more reliable sources. The issue is that there seems to be a vast difference between what airs on the TV channel Fox News, and what they report in print articles (online). The print articles are generally a lot more reliable, probably because they are more susceptible to lawsuits, whereas the increasingly opinionized drivel often (but not always) spouted on the air is just that -- opinionized drivel. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly, any edit filter would only discourage citing Fox News print articles, not its TV channel. feminist (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose further narrowing political angle of news sources until there is clear evidence Fox news is largely fraudulent (rather than present a point of view). Even if there were some vague questions about the source I think it is too important to keep some balance in what are regarded as facts. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's been a long time since I've paid any attention at all to Fox News, so when I saw this request last night I looked at their website. I read news stories that would be comfortably at home at any other news website such as cnn.com (Netflix is raising its prices, new details about a kidnapped girl's ordeal, etc.) I see no reason why these articles shouldn't be considered reliable sources for these topics. Peacock (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile the top story on Fox's website is this (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/beto-orourke-mocked-after-offering-few-answers-in-wide-ranging-policy-interview), which is precisely the sort of unreliable stuff that motivated me to post the question. Source-laundering from an illegitimate source (Daily Caller) which misrepresents a Washington Post article, and making claims that O'Rourke "suggests we might need to ditch the Constitution" which is not supported by the original interview. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The Fox article does not make the ditch the constitution claim. The Fox article says "Other commentators were less forgiving. "This last bit – where he suggests we might need to ditch the Constitution? – is wild," wrote senior Huffington Post political reporter Kevin Robillard." What the Fox article says about O-Rourke's comment is "The Washington Post portrayed him as equivocal and unsure on a variety of substantive policy issues -- and included a comment that seemed to question the modern-day relevance of the U.S. Constitution.". Which is inline with the Washington Post article saying “Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”. PackMecEng (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only effect of an edit filter would be to warn (and thus discourage) editors from citing the Fox News website. The Fox News website is generally considered more reliable and less biased for news than the TV channel. Its straight news reporting is often good and comparable to other news outlets. Heck, we don't even treat RT with the filter. feminist (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
"Heck, we don't even treat RT with the filter" but we probably should, and that illustrates why proposals like this are important. The wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources as it exists, allowing sources of such unreliability as Fox News and RT, is as it stands a joke. 73.76.213.67 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
That is my take, just because we do not not deprecate one bad source does not mean we should not deprecate another. One reason why many of these sources are not deprecated is because of the "but what about..." line of argument. We have to start some where.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Edit filters should only be employed when the source is so bad as to be usableunusable under WP:RSOPINION, much less RS. That was shown for the Daily Mail as they were found to have changed/altered statement of opinion from third-parties, making any of their opinion pieces unreliable for opinion. But even if you think we should stay away from FOX's news side with a ten-foot pool, their opinion pieces that otherwise aren't chasing down weak theories and conspiracies are still find as RSOPINION. There is zero reason to call out for use of an edit filter for Fox News, only that we alter the table of sources to note the numerous caveats before using FOX News for factual information. It's already been shown that once you add these sources to an edit filter based on on failing RS ad not RSOPINION, that editors will strip out use of RSOPINION of that source, which is not proper or what consensus said. The edit filter should only e used for the absolutely unusable sources. --Masem (t) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Masem, I assume you mean unusable under RSOPINION? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, corrected. --Masem (t) 21:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The point is that there has been much discussion on RT, with suggestions to blacklist it raised many times, and yet RT was never blacklisted. RT was deemed a legitimate and useful enough source that blacklisting would be harmful (a view I disagree with). I think most editors would trust Fox News over RT, for obvious reasons. feminist (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I hope that the final decision on closure is not based on whether the proposer editor may have been blocked, but soley on the reliability and quality of Fox News as a source. ~ BOD ~ TALK 12:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Blocking the Daily Mail (and now the Sun as well) but not Fox News just goes to show the inherent bias and inconsistent approach being made here. UK Tabloids are sensationalist, they are not great sources of information, but they do at least answer to a regulator and the UK has much stronger defamation laws than the US (e.g., in the UK the balance of proof is in the claimant's favour - the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement has to prove what they said is true to rely on the defence that they were telling the truth). What is the regulator that Fox News answers to and have they ever taken action against anyone? If we are to go solely on anecdotes (as the majority did in the Daily Mail case) then Fox News is even worse than the Daily Mail. If we are to go with perceived "political bias" (as the majority did in the Daily Mail case) then again Fox News is far worse. In my view no legitimate news organisation (which both Fox and the DM are) should ever be blocked, only hoax organisations like InfoWars, but if you're going to go after sensationalist news outlets then be consistent. FOARP (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This is not about the DM, please stop dragging this up.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It's literally right there in the nomination. And repeated throughout the discussion. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Qualified to translate, and add a commentary on the Manusmriti, and other Sanskrit works

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

{{rfc|hist|lang|reli}} There’s been a reversion war on Slavery in India, primarily due to the credibility of sources, see: Talk:Slavery in India#Manusmriti, which per Kautilya3 suggestion I’ll raise here. What qualifications must an author have, to reliably translate, and comment on a two millennia old work, and does a published commentary, on a Sanskrit work constitute a review, or is it still a Primary work; in the example above, is ‘’Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi, by Ganganath Jha, 1920, ISBN-10: 8120811550’’, a reliable, non primary source, that’s been authored, and published by qualified entities, and in particular whether the following excerpt can be considered reliable Verse 8.415[1], and current. --83.104.51.74 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi, by Ganganath Jha, 1920, ISBN 8120811550
  • I have disabled the premature RfC because RfC is not the first resort and this question is pretty simple to answer. Primary or not, you are using a translation from 1920. Lots of things have changed in the scholarship concerning any ancient texts in these almost 100 years. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there any evidence the translation is wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I am confused. There is no single way to translate any book, or even paragraph of a book, so there isn't really a sense of right or wrong. But when the original is 1800 or so years old and is fuelled by mythology etc, it isn't going to stand up as verification of anything except itself. It may not even be complete. The same could be said of the Christian Bible or the Qu'ran. Even the 1920s commentary, if indeed that were being relied upon here, would fail our usual standards, as the anon says above. We need modern academic sources that discuss Hindu law in the context required for the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course, but the issue is that the translation is not accurate. For this to be the case there must be alternative translations for this participial part of the text (or at least someone saying its wrong). Otherwise that line of argument is invalid. Now if it is incomplete and we have only a partial passage for this material that is a different argument (is this the case, is this particular passage incomplete?). Now is this discussion the contemporary situation (that is the edit, not the source) or a historical one?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, there is no such thing as an accurate translation (we often cannot even agree on transliteration of Indic names) and when it comes to religious texts there are thousands of interpretations - hence all of the various sects etc within the major religions, and terrible attempts to codify aspects of religious law such as the Brits did in India. As for whether something is complete or not ... you're pretty much asking to prove a negative: we're not talking of situations such as a burned page or a couple missing in a numbered sequence here. I think you should perhaps read the article about the text and about broadly similar Indic texts/epics etc, such as the Mahabharata, which form a core to how a phenomenal number of Indian people think today. They're assembled concoctions of relative modernity compiled over long periods of time by multiple people and which are supposedly based on much older originals that no-one has seen in centuries. And those concoctions do not always agree on what the alleged original said. Then someone translates it into English! There is no way we are qualified to interpret and thus we must rely on modern expert sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No I am not asking you to prove a negative, I am asking you to prove a positive, that there are alternative translations. And again I ask, what is it being used as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The translation from 1920 is being used as a source for writing about slavery, a social issue, that is still discussed in the modern times. For this situation we have to use modern academic sources because they have indeed researched the past translations and interpretations. Why do we have to rely on outdated translations when we have so many modern translations? The age of the book has significance in the sense that there were not enough translators of the ancient texts in those days (in 1920) but today there are many that have rectified lots of errors that had been made in the pre-independent India. Patrick Olivelle is one of those modern translator that we should be using.[22] 103.60.175.111 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This is all general, not specific (and I take it form this that, yes, this is being used in the context of historical (not current) Indian culture and slavery) point. None of this show this source is unreliable for what it is being used for, only for what it is not being used for. Moreover it keeps on being said there are netter and more modern translations available for this text, OK proved one that differs form this translation in a way that alters its meaning? If all the translations say the same thing we can use any translation, if they differ prove it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
But even if there was no difference then still we are more truthful to the policy if we are using the modern source. By modern I am not saying that we should take a book from 2019 and then reject Patrick Olivelle (2004), but anyone can agree that a source from 1920 is no longer relevant, be it this particular text or any other ancient text of any other country or culture. See WP:RS#Some types of sources 103.60.175.111 (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Policy says nothing about having to use modern sources. The only issue would be where modern scholarship overturns older scholarship, not where there is no substantive difference. And I have no idea what relevance has to do with it, we are interested in accuracy and reliability, not relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is dawning on me that you may be one of the contrarian contributors I promised myself I would try to avoid: got to have a say about everything and rarely says much that is useful. And if anyone really wants to block me for saying that, feel free but I think you will find I have support. Not everything on Wikipedia needs a bright-line policy If you don't understand why an old source is problematic, you probably should think about taking up another hobby. Or read WHISTLERS and umpteen past threads on this very noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Sitush Hardy's proof that 1+1=2 is 80 years old, which from your last comment would suggest you personally may nolonger treat as valid, as there's been no scholarship in the last decade to verify his assertion is still valid, and without positive reaffirment a 20th century source can't be trusted. Similarly there have been at least a dozen English translations of the Manusmriti, since Jones's 1770's effort, and that the EIC used as the basis of their implementation of Hindu Law in India, and its later adoption by the Raj, and Republic. The translations I've seen all have a similar interpretation of verse 8.415 on enslavement, despite being from 50+ pre-colonial originals, so I'll assert legal enslavement is covered in the work, and that quoting a 1920 translation, and commentary, by a Sanskrit scholar, holding a D.lit in the field, is a valid source for asserting the work covers enslavement, it was understood to codify enslavement in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries covered in the section, and is a valid, non primary source to cite in the "Regulation and Prohibition" section, for the period, as is the quoted Reprint of Jones's translation. Despite two particular editors objecting to the earlier Jones interpretation, and Jha's 1920, as not recent, a translation is a Primary source, offering an Opinion that Jha was not qualified to translate, and comment on a Sanskrit text, and so on, though not offering any Reliable source that invalidates any of the out of copyright translations of the work, or that Jha was an unqualified fraud. That IMHO is down to accepting the text covers legal enslavement in Hinduism, contradicts some of the opinions expressed on the page. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am afraid the OP has framed the issue in a completely misleading way. The issue is not whether the translation is valid or not. But rather, he maintains that the 1921 translation is a SECONDARY source. To wit: "till I’m persuaded otherwise, a properly published commentary on a work is a Review of the work, and ... so a box ticking secondary source." If all he does is to include in the article, content of the form "Manusmriti says X", that would be somewhat acceptable (even though we would need SECONDARY sources to demonstrate its relevance). But the OP draws inferences from it such as 'Replace “ancient times” with a less vague, “before verse Verse 8.415 of the Manusmriti”,...' [23]. The effect of the edit was to say that the term dasa (the Sanskrit word used to mean slave) might have had different meanings before the Manu verse, but after that, it was frozen for ever. No secondary source ever said such a thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Final comment, No evidence has been produced this is not an accurate (or even not the best) translation available. It is not (as far as I can tell, and no evidence has been produced to the contrary) that it is being used for the current laws of India (thus any argument based upon that is invalid). However the above new post raises doubts (it is nice to actually know what we are talking about), but I am not seeing where he cites it, this seems cited to another source.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No evidence has been produced this is not an accurate (or even not the best) translation available.
So what happened to your claim about asking people to prove a positive, when you're doing the exact opposite?
So where's the evidence that this is an accurate (or even best) translation available? You know, the actual standard of proof? Or is this another bit of your contrarianism? --Calton | Talk 07:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fundinguniverse.com

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion

It seem was discussed before, but i found out instead of problem as reliable source, the site seem in fact pirated the content of International Directory of Company Histories, which despite the book is RS, the website and the pirated version may not be a RS. So, should all the link be clean up entirely and add the domain to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? Matthew hk (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say not, as I can find nothing about who they are, or how they verify their information.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. FundingUniverse appears to be a self-published tertiary source that doesn't disclose who its authors are. The "Further Reading" section at the bottom of each listing provides a bibliography that makes a great starting point for research, but content from the site itself shouldn't be relied upon for accuracy. — Newslinger talk 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The content reproduced in Funding Universe is not pirated, it is released by the copyright holder. The content is from old editions of International Directory of Company Histories, and the same content is also used by the websites Encyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, and some others. One can determine the specific volume, date, publisher, and editor of the International Directory of Company Histories in question by Googling any sentence or long phrase (in quotation marks) of the content. They are always old volumes; Gale (the current copyright holder of International Dictionary of Company Histories) the keeps current volumes (the last few years) under copyright but releases content of the old volumes for general use. Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not see any copyright notice of International Directory of Company Histories that release the content to that site. It sound strange. Matthew hk (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/terms.php. It just said the material was copyrighted but did not claim it received permission from the old publisher of International Directory of Company Histories. Also the first volume was published in 1988, they are not in the public domain. Matthew hk (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter that you can't personally find the info; what I stated is accurate. Gale publishes updated volumes of International Directory of Company Histories every year, and releases or sells the content of its various volumes from more than a few years back (a decade or more) to be reproduced by Encyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, and FundingUniverse.com. The source is attributed on each article/page. You're free to contact them to verify: [24]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It sound lame to email the pirate site to ask them do you pirated the content.They make a poorly coded website that also made invitation to post ad on the website. Also, http://www.fundinguniverse.com/licenses.php is dead link or intended or unintended "Unable to connect to MySQL server." to display the page. Matthew hk (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: Fundinguniverse.com

There was limited participation, but for current purposes we have the following results:

  • General agreement that content at Fundinguniverse.com which is reprinted from International Directory of Company Histories should be cited to International Directory of Company Histories.
  • There appear to be no concerns with accuracy of the reprinting, and discussion of copyright was minimal, contradictory, and apparently unsubstantiated speculation on both sides. A new discussion may be opened to substantiate any such issues. In particular WP:ELNEVER would firmly prohibit linking if the website were violating copyright. Absent substantive discussion to the contrary, the content may be linked with via Fundinguniverse or similar per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. However better links may exist. Harvard Business School library and Stanford GSB library (dead link) were suggested back in 2012,[25] and would clearly be preferred.
Alsee (talk) 07:41, 24 January 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 Fundinguniverse.com be removed and blacklisted on questionable copyright and as self-published tertiary source of International Directory of Company Histories. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC). Matthew hk (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Not a Wikipedia RS. This is a somewhat preliminary answer, pending answers to questions below. There is no description of -- or really evidence of -- any real fact-checking or investigatory work done by the source. Most sources, and the company's own site, refer to the site as a service to get funding for businesses, not any kind of journalism. The primary WP:RS coverage of FundingUniverse is a 2011 Forbes magazine article claiming that they might be a ripoff and it appears the company changed its name at the same time. [26] It appears that the site scrapes content from the International Directory of Company Histories. Regardless of whether that is an authorized use, given the lack of any evidence or reputation of being a quality secondary source, it seems clear that the encyclopedia should cite the International Directory, not FundingUniverse.com. Chris vLS (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    Not a preliminary answer anymore... thanks for the link, Matthew hk --Chris vLS (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable. All content comes from the International Directory of Company Histories, and should be cited as such (not to FundingUniverse). Gale licenses the content of old (decade or more old) volumes of the International Directory of Company Histories to three different websites: Encyclopedia.com, ReferenceForBusiness.com, and FundingUniverse.com. The volume number, publisher, and year of publication are listed at the bottom of each article. If the editor and page numbers are desired, do a Google search of any phrase within the article, or Google the company name and "international directory of company histories". I've generally found the International Directory of Company Histories reliable unless contradicted by more granular research, which, frankly, is sometimes not findable on the web if the company has a really long history. It's often good to double-check dates and dollar amounts, but by and large I find the International Directory of Company Histories at least 90% accurate, which is more accurate than most sources for business and industry content. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Summoned via bot:) Reliable per Softlavender (with the stipulation that citations should name the International Directory of Company Histories while linking to the text on fundinguniverse.com). It seems that after more than five weeks, the nominator has still not been able to substantiate his main argument, namely the concern that the content in question might consist of copyright violations. As for "self-published tertiary source of International Directory of Company Histories", that secondary argument seems to be based on misconceptions regarding the linked policies: There is no prohibition against the use of tertiary sources, in fact they can make very useful references depending on the situation. And the nominator seems to be unfamiliar with very definition of "self-published" as used in Wikipedia policies: As explained in the first sentence of Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, this term refers to circumstances where the author and the publisher are the same, which is clearly not the case here. Lastly, there are apparently quite a few books (from established publishing houses) that cite this source. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. Fundinguniverse.com is very similar to Answers.com (WP:RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the Fundinguniverse.com page, and also include "– via Fundinguniverse.com" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via Answers.com"). If Fundinguniverse contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Fundinguniverse.com that weren't sourced from the International Directory of Company Histories. — Newslinger talk 22:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Reliability of news outlets in general

Latest comment: 5 years ago24 comments18 people in discussion

Given the recent focus on this noticeboard as to whether various news outlets are reliable (or not) I am wondering whether we need to expand, clarify or strengthen WP:NEWSORGS (the section of WP:RS that deals with news outlets). I realize that this isn’t the venue for discussing specific changes to the guideline (that should take place on the talk page of the guideline itself). I just want to get a rough consensus on whether our current guidance needs improvement, and (if so) perhaps some initial (broad scope) comments on how it might be improved. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I think it is time to update it, I think the nature of news media has changed. Even the best rely to much now on social media and rushes to grab half backed exclusives, and the worst make no effort to even hided the fact they plain make stuff up. The main issue (as I said) is rush to published, thus not news needs to be stronger and say that no news media (no matter how RS) can be used unless the story is produced long after the event. I would go further and say that new reports (rather then magazine style products (be they articles or documentaries) should never be used.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) One of the biggest problems is the use of medical/scientific press releases verbatim or so nearly verbatim as to make the actual correct source, the press release itself. Wikipedia must address this issue at some point. The next real issue is the existence of "celebrity gossip" even from "reputable outlets." The sad truth is that major news outlets would rather issue "corrections" than factcheck juicy stories. There certainly are other problems, but these two well ought be dealt with. Collect (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

great comments... keep em coming. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm wary of attempts to re-write our guidelines to deprecate the use of mainstream journalistic outlets. Our guidelines and policies are quite clear that reputable journalistic outlets are bedrock reliable sources, and much of the encyclopedia as it exists is built on them, so the change being proposed here is tectonic. It is true that in the US, at least, there has been a partisan effort to discredit reputable journalism and to attack its practitioners as "enemies of the people", but I'm disappointed to see that effort gaining traction here. Leaving aside the sociopolitical context of this effort, a change this massive and fundamental to the project should be based on something more substantial than a few editors' gripes about the media landscape. MastCell Talk 18:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree... depreciation is definitely NOT my goal in asking about this. I think it more an issue of better explaining when and how news sources should (and should not) be used, rather than whether they MAY be used. I am thinking of something to help editors better appreciate and navigate the grey areas of using news sources, rather than something that would present it as a black and white (good vs bad) issue. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
As an example, after the Istanbul night club attack the article on that was updates almost as a live news feed as new media produced new reports (much of which are now known to have been in "error"). If we had a hard and fast "NO NEWS UNLESS IT IS 4 WEEKS AFTER AN INCIDENT" Much of that wasted effort would not have been engaged in.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Every decent editor should know that on-the-spot reporting often gets it wrong; every decent editor should know not to rush to judgment. See, for instance, John_M._Bacon#Battle_of_Sugar_Point, or SS_Sirio#Wreck (racist newspaper reporting claiming horrible things about Italian men). But that doesn't mean "the" news is unreliable per se--it just means that immediate reports aren't always reliable. But a hard and fast rule (four weeks?) isn't very helpful here (since some events that are immediately reported are simply reported correctly, verified by multiple sources, etc.)--never mind that NOTNEWS is the most blatantly ignored guideline we have. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Some years ago I watched journalist Matt Taibbi, then working for Rolling Stone, explain his experience about working on a feature article about his impressions of the Donald Trump campaign as he followed him around the country. He said it all became so predictable that he could just write code numbers, #1, or #2 in his notes for example, of Trump's campaign stops. Unlike the regular journalists, that gave him plenty of time to observe both the other journalists and what they were writing. According to Taibbi, the mad scramble for a daily smashing headline meant that next to no fact checking what so ever went on. So that's where we are today in this fast-moving world. What to do? In my experience of working on political articles, seasoned editors have a pretty good feel for letting the dust settle down a tad, though I'm talking about hours or in some cases a few days, not weeks or, God forbid, months! I very much agree with MastCell's concerns and hope that more cautious thoughts and actions prevail here. Gandydancer (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
insert my usual speil about NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM. I think a core issue is making editors aware of how we need to balance being able to be up-to-date with long-term reliability. There are some points of breaking news that are objective or non-confrontational that would be part of an article still 5/10/20 years out, and that's what we can use mainstream RS to report on. But when we get to any areas where there is controversy or events moving too fast, even our RSes can be wrong, and we should not be rushing to add (or create articles) with this information until we know how best to write. That makes it less an issue about RSes no longer being RSes, but more than we need the right perspective of what is critical and should be added which may not reflect how the RSes are treated the subject at that instance. We have to be aware that Wikipedia does contribute to citogenesis in the news system, and we should be looking to stop that rather than contributing to it. --Masem (t) 20:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think the current policy should be clarified. Possible topics for discussion: recentism; primary/secondary (aka reporting/analysis) distinction; use of press releases, interview transcriptions, quotes, and video interviews (aboutself via news reports); citing for "truth of the matter reported" vs. citing for the fact of reporting; citing to news org's tweets v. videos v. web pages v. printed media; use of vanity press and kayfabe; routine v. significant coverage of athletes, politicians, and other public figures. I've seen a lot of variety in local consensus on these issues in my short time here and it seems like it would be good for the community to discuss the current news environment and see what clarifications should be made to the existing guideline. Levivich? ! 01:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
EEng 05:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping, and I'd appreciate another one if there is an RfC.
    There are two separate issues here: unreliability of early reporting, and the need for "historical" perspective in some topic areas including politics. We've all witnessed the ill effects of both many times. I would support any enforced delay for content based on news media coverage, up to four weeks, including article creation for events. Emphasis on enforced, and this should be a new criterion at WP:SPEEDY.
    Readers accustomed to coming here for summaries of recent news, and editors accustomed to providing them, would simply have to accept that this is, after all, an encyclopedia, as painful as that adjustment would be. We needn't redefine that word simply because technology has made it possible to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Since news reports on current events tend to be less accurate, it might also be a good idea to make the {{Current}} template more prominent. Most of the articles linked in the Main Page's In the news section aren't tagged with {{Current}}, and the template isn't displayed in Wikipedia's mobile website or mobile apps. More precisely, you have to tap the easy-to-miss "Page issues" link in the mobile website to see it, and the apps don't show it at all.
Three suggestions:
  1. Require In the news articles to be tagged with {{Current}}.
  2. Increase the visibility of "initial news reports may be unreliable" in {{Current}} with bold, italic, underline, and/or a larger font size.
  3. Display {{Current}} (and possibly other cleanup templates regarding article reliability) prominently in Wikipedia's mobile website and apps.
This would warn readers to be cautious when viewing articles on current events. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I share the concerns mentioned by MastCell and Masem with regard to WP:NOTNEWS. I would love to see a policy change to slow the rate at which Wikipedia comments in depth on political conflicts and other breaking news. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - thanks for the ping, EEng. I figured it was only a matter of time before we'd be visiting this topic again; all the while hoping it wouldn't take as long as it did, but I've been practicing WP:IDGAF and have gotten pretty good at it. From my perspective, the problem stems from click-bait competition and the paradigm shift in how corporate media views the news as they try to adjust to the ever-expanding global market which is driven by a completely different demograhic and a huge s-pot full of new competition that caught them off-guard. Add to that, the fact that they are no longer hindered by the customary delays of print and distribute and it's much easier to publish apologies, corrections and retractions than it used to be... ("It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"...or in media's case, fact-check). Unfortunately, sensationalism is back in all its glory as a result but it still all boils down to corporate media's bottomline; i.e., what they need to survive and be profitable, and I don't mean the latter in a derogatory way. The gray line between news, opinion and propaganda has grown exponentially, and as such it shifts more responsibility to WP editors. I'm of the mind that our PAGs actually do a good job of defining the pitfalls, and that what we need is enforcement; however, if the latter is an issue because of ambiguity in a particular policy or guideline, then by all means, let's fix it. Atsme✍🏻📧 18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Do nothing I see no good way to solve what Blueboar wants. Editors should use their brains in picking out RS stories to use, and I feel that would be better than attempting to legislate a holding time for articles before they can be used as sources. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. Yes, this is a problem. In principle, I'd like to see better use of common sense by editors, but of course that isn't working. In my opinion, any kind of holding period is going to prove unworkable, and will do some harm along with the good. But I very much support Newslinger's idea about using the "current" template to label the problem more prominently. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The hard-and-fast 4 week waiting period seems wildly impractical. If Gerald Ford has just been eaten by wolves, it's silly for editors to sit on their hands waiting for some arbitrary time frame to pass before adding that information to the article - there's no possible reality where that story doesn't matter. Newslinger's suggestion seems relatively simple to implement, but these other issues are probably better handled by writing a supplemental essay rather than changing existing policy. Nblund talk 19:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
If Gerald had been eaten by wolves we could wait four weeks until we knew the full details and wrote an informed story that. We would lose nothing by waiting, other then inaccuracy caused by a desire to publish first. We are an encyclopedia, not a news paper.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what we can do. My recent bout of perplexity was, there was an unfortunate story about a missing airplane and a football/soccer player, instead of a sentence added to his article, there is practically instantaneously a mention in his article, and a whole new article, about so much that is unknown or so granular as to to just lead to, 'what, story-of-the-day ticker is this?'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That's one part of the problem: there is something I've seen about a sense of "conquest" to be the first to create a new article. (I know I feel a rush of pleasure to be the first to note a famous RD at In the News, among other things). I feel a lot of editors that do work in current news feel this. The most obvious solution would be to encourage them to go to Wikinews and do that , where that would be expected behavior, but everyone will complain Wikinews is DOA. The longer term solution is to get editors to recognize when a new article on a news-breaking story is appropriate or not, but that's going to require a lot of time to get that to sink in. More practically and in the short term, I think we should be able to be more BOLD and redirect news-story spinouts that, at the time, are seemingly unnecessary and where the details can be expressed in another article, like that plane disappearance. Should that story end up growing more significant, it can always be spun back out. But we need editors not to get upset and fight when such bold redirections are made. --Masem (t) 15:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to make a change. If a specific use of a specific story from a specific newspaper is a problem, fix it yourself, and if someone objects, invite them into a discussion to work it out. That's how we do everything here. If it's important enough, it's important enough to actually go through the time to do that. Any blanket change to policy regarding the use of news sources is throwing out a giant baby in a tiny tub of bathwater. --Jayron32 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree no policy changes are needed but there are potential places to add in additional cautionary language ("Be aware of sensationalism and recentism that exists in 24/7 newscasting") in places. Moreso, this is more getting editors as a group to recognize how better to handle these situations, and this is something that exists throughout all expertise levels of editors, newbies to seniors. --Masem (t) 16:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Book written by an involved police officer

Latest comment: 5 years ago27 comments11 people in discussion

One user has been frequently insisting that this source http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/nightsoffalsehood/ which I deem as horrible source is a reliable source for writing about the incidents where this person has a COI in anything about Punjab insurgency and Khalistan movement. This source is being used too much in those articles and related subjects. Writer is Kanwar Pal Singh Gill who is alleged of human rights abuses and has been convicted of sexual harassment and his writings are highly non-neutral as you can read through this source and is certainly not inclined to present the events in a neutral way as his writings show. Should this source be considered reliable? Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It is reliable for their views, and thus we could say "according to...".Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources are not required to be neutral (in fact, most sources are not)... our job is to balance what different (non-neutral) sources say. As Slatersteven notes, the best way to do this is to use attribution. When the various sources disagree about a topic, explain who says what. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Lets not comment on users.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • If you directly attribute the cited material to the source, so that anything you put in Wikipedia from that source is not in Wikipedia's voice, you should be fine "As written by the officer themselves in their own autobiography yada yada yada" is more acceptable than just speaking in Wikipedia's voice with no direct attribution and only a footnote to the book. When in down, tell the readers where you got the information from so they can decide how much weight to give it. --Jayron32 20:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman and User:Jayron32, thanks for the kind comments, can you please elaborate the reason behind such a comment ? Is any factual information from this book incorrect? Also I would like to hear from you, how does Wikipedia war related articles handle such issues ? Knowing that most of the war related books are written by high ranking military officials from one side or the other, unless it is a quote or a commentary/opinion from the author that is being added into the article, I have never seen attributions to every piece of factual information evidence in the wikipedia article that is cited to the particular book by the military officer. [I have already noted in my comment above that The book is currently used in wiki articles only as references for facts & incidents, and not for any opinion or commentary.]--DBigXrayᗙ 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC) [struck at 21:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)]
Don't use a source known to publish falsehoods! The idea that I would allow this source with caution indicates that there's no indication of falsehood. The problem is one of bias. Somebody involved in the events will have all sorts of cognitive processes that will alter memory to favor a desired outsome. That's how human brains works. We need to be a little skeptical of such sources. Use with care. Jehochman Talk 21:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman thanks for elaborating, I agree with the general comments that you made above. But for this particular case I don't see them to be applicable. "Don't use a source known to publish falsehoods" right, but what falsehood did you find in the book ? "Somebody involved in the events" Again I would note that Gill was not involved in the events described in the book. The book Punjab, the knights of falsehood is mostly centered around events from 1978 to 1987 which does not overlap with his tenure. because Gill headed the Punjab police from 1988 to 1990 and from 1991 to 1995. If you are making this claim, under the assumption, that a Police officer will follow the line of the government, please note that Gill has heavily criticized the actions of the government (e.g. Operation Blue Star, Sikh riots) in his book as one of the "biggest blunders" done by the government. So, lets not make general assumption based observations. Unless this book is found to falsify factual information, we should not really be making such comments about the book. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Stop trying to badger editors out and accept what everyone has said about an obviously unreliable source. You are the only person endlessly advocating this misleading book. The book is so factually incorrect that I can create a grand list of lies and fabrications found in this book. But then I also don't feel like I should be spending that much time to analyze a very unreliable source. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
A number of us have said it can be used with correct attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Just because someone is a law enforcement officer doesn't mean (a) they are telling the truth or (b) capable of stepping back from a situation when describing it. Works by people involved in an incident etc at the time are effectively primary and need to be treated with care, for reasons such as Jehochman mentions. This is particularly so in a situation such as that of Gill, who has been a controversial figure in and out of office. Use him if there is no alternative but think hard about whether it is necessary and, if it is, attribute it in the prose. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Which is why we say "according to..." and then include any counter arguments.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I know. Will you please stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. - Sitush (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Harmanprtjhj, nobody has said that the source is "unreliable". Rather, Gill being an involved party in at least some of the events, the book fails the WP:THIRDPARTY criterion and it may be WP:BIASED. That does not mean that it cannot be used. It just means that it may need to be balanced against other sources. You have failed to tell us where problems have arisen. The two articles you mention, Punjab insurgency and Khalistan movement do not have a single citation to the book. So what exactly are you talking about? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have located two book reviews of the book[1][2] neither of which supports the idea that the book contains "falsehoods". Rather, the second review says:

Virtually all of this has appeared before in print. But the fact that the writer was DG of police, privy to bona fide information, adds a great degree of authenticity to the book.

References

  1. ^ Satyapal Dang, Book review: The Knights of Falsehood by K.P.S. Gill, India Today, 15 September 1997.
  2. ^ Anikendra Nath Sen, Inside K. P. S. Gill, Outlook, 1 September 1997.
So it seems to me that Harmanprtjhj is barking up the wrong tree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: It is unreliable in the sense that we are better off without using it unless it becomes too necessary, but not without attribution. Why you are deceptively tag-teaming with DBigXray? Anyone can find "The Knights of Falsehood" on Punjab insurgency and Khalistan movement.103.60.175.111 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, you are not going to endear yourself to any one with your snide remarks and vague allegations. So better stick to the matter at hand.
  • I am telling you what I (and others) have been observing for extended period and it is becoming beyond disruptive.
  • OP mentions the articles then also says "those articles and related subjects" which indicates that the use of this source is probably more prevalent than just two articles. Although it would be irrelevant now to name each article since we agree that it fails "WP:THIRDPARTY criterion and it may be WP:BIASED". It can be used only "opinion or commentary" with attribution, but nothing else. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, "disruptive"? Funny, I never heard that term before!
I have now posted a book review that says it is authentic. So unless you find another review that says otherwise, that is where the matters stand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This argument is WP:POINTy because a 22 years old review from outlookindia.com is irrelevant when it comes to authenticity or reliability. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Why would the age of a review have any relevancy? Unless of course, they were of an earlier edition.--Auric talk 13:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
There have been many investigations and changes in scholarship related to this subject which has significantly modified the common observation that people view it differently that they did it 22 years ago. That's why the date of that review is important. 103.60.175.111 (talk)
  • Look, you guys are fighting over the wrong thing. A book by an author is always a reliable source for the words that that author wrote in the book. If you are saying "This person said these things" and that person wrote a book saying those things, then the book is a reliable source for writing that in Wikipedia. It may or may not be a reliable source for saying "The things the person said are true", but that is a different question. If you want to quote or paraphrase the police officer's own statements about the events, then say "The police officer said, in their own book, 'yada yada yada'" That's fine. The reason that is OK is that the statement is scrupulously true: That officer did write that in their own book. Now, if you have a different source which disputes what the officer said, attribute that source in the same way. --Jayron32 13:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Gill's book has never been used in any article to add Gill's personal opinion or sayings into Wikipedia article. The book is only used for verification of facts about incident that occured 40 years ago. When Gill was not involved in the events, since he joined in 1988.
Harmanprtjhj has been claiming that book is biased, well, can we see some examples of fact falsification ? Neither he nor anyone else in this discussion thread has provided any evidence of falsification of facts in the book. Even though it is expected of them to either produce sources to say that Gill is not reliable, or needs to produce alternative reliable sources that contradict what facts are mentioned in Gill's books.
None of the two book reviews Kautilya3 posted above says that the book has falsified any fact about the incident.
To take an example currently the book has been used at 3 places in Punjab insurgency. Jayron and few have suggested to add according to so the lines will look like this.
  • "According to Gill, in the ensuing violence seventeen people were killed. "
  • "According to Gill, Punjab Police Deputy Inspector General A. S. Atwal was shot dead as he left the Harmandir Sahib compound. "
  • "According to Gill, six policemen abducted from a post near Golden Temple "
I see this completely redundant to add this "according to Gill" for undisputed statements of facts, in the articles. In spite of none of the reliable source published reviews claiming any factual error. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Since he is a controversial figure and a very primary source, you can completely avoid using this source altogether unless you are using it for something where it wouldn't be WP:UNDUE to share his view with attribution. You need to treat it as just any other controversial primary source. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Forebears.io

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. I see from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 235#Forebears that Forebears.io was not considered a reliable source. Can people confirm whether this is still the case or not? We have a good-faith contributor, User:Pamrel, who is creating pages (like Puska (surname) or Pellegrini (surname)) and adding sections (like on Weimar) based solely on this site; but it is unclear where they get their data from or why it should be considered reliable. Fram (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate they have changed, so not it is still not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll start removing the site then, unless other information comes to light. Fram (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

famousbirthsdeaths.com

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I contend that individual entries at famousbirthsdeaths.com are not reliable sources. For instance, https://www.famousbirthsdeaths.com/nf-bio-net-worth-facts/ has no author and there's no indication from where these "facts" are derived. SavageAlpaca7 (talk · contribs) disagrees, stating "*Do not change* source is properly stated". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The site solicits additions and corrections from the public. It allows readers to vote on whether a person is dead or alive. It fails WP:RS by a few miles https://www.famousbirthsdeaths.com/about/ Collect (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting info. 103.60.175.111 (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the four uses as sources. There is some use in drafts that I didn't bother examining. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

David Leip wedsite

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We have uselectionatlas.org sourcing many American federal election results. It this the best source for this info?--Moxy (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the article for the website if you want some background Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it is regarded as reliable by many RS. So yes I think this is usable (despite its at variance colour choice).Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. BTW: The website is currently being linked from as many as 5,506 articles. --Leyo 22:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

45cat.com

Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Is 45.com a reliable source? Can it be used in any circumstances? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No, this [[31]], seems to indicate it is user generated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This website seems to fall under WP:AFFILIATE: "Although the content guidelines for external links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times". But looking at the link above, it seems it is user-generated, so no. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all pretty clear. Personally, I find the images of record labels at 45cat, with artist and composer names, as well as Catalogue numbers, clearly shown, a very useful resource and sometimes more reliable than dicscogs.com. But then I also tend to find discogs about 99% reliable too. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I've invited editors from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music to participate in this discussion, as they are likely to be more familiar with this source than I am. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Like discogs.com, this site is reliable is as far as showing that a specific pressing of a recording existed. Its content is otherwise not reliable. The converse cannot be supported: if the recording does not appear on the site it never existed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

*???. Is there an actual problem that you are trying to address? Like discogs, it's mainly used on WP as a pointer to liner notes in picture and/or text form. Chubbles says it way better below. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment It is user-generated, like IMDB or Discogs. I don't use it for citations and don't encourage the use of it in that way. However...almost every usage of it as a reference is verifying basic catalog information about a published sound recording, of the sort that is essentially uncontroversial almost all of the time. Given that it often has images in addition to text, it's a great informal place to find track listings and credits of recordings, and it has a lot of information that is not otherwise available online - its photographs allow users to check discographical information without having to track down a physical copy of a recording. I can't imagine doubting an editor's discographical contributions merely because the information came from 45cat, and I think that anything that is sourced to places like Discogs and 45cat should, rather than being stingily removed, be converted to a reference to the recording itself when and if a citation is needed. Chubbles (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Who's Who and UK politicians

Latest comment: 5 years ago22 comments13 people in discussion

Yesterday somebody added some Who's Who links to biographies of UK politicians (such as here and here). I mentioned it at the helpdesk and was advised to post here. Any thoughts on this? Is its use ok in this particular context? This is Paul (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Who's Who (UK) doesn't fill me with confidence. It doesn't look as though they do sufficient fact checking to be as reliable as I'd like. Doug Weller talk 11:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
With in text attribution, perhaps. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Not even sure then, but maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Entries aren't paid for - people considered sufficiently notable are asked by the publishers for details - and entries are to some degree fact-checked by the editors. It's an extremely well-known and trusted publication in the UK - I can't see any justification for calling it "self-published". Yes, its main source of information is the person concerned, but I'm not sure this is much different to a reputable newspaper publishing an article about someone based on an interview with them, or a published autobiography, both of which I think we'd accept as sources within their limits. WP:PRIMARY - "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." TSP (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit-conflicting with above but agreeing with it.) The people to be included are decided (idiosyncratically) by the editorial team. However, the content of the entries is certainly influenced, are to some extent decided, by the subjects.[33][34][35][36] I think a reliable source would be helpful for the comment above that "the entries are generally paid for". As I understand it the British Who's Who is distinct from some other versions in not accepting payment but I don't have a reference to hand for the non-UK situation. So, it is a guide to notability and needs to be handled carefully for reliability. Thincat (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you are right, the payments does not refer to the original British Who's Who. There you can only get in by being nominated by a trade association or inheriting something or whatever. But the information is still provided, fundamentally, by the subject. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think some editors are asserting that Who's Who is paid for based on their experience in the US, where there is a history of Who's Who scams. The UK Who's Who (that is, the one published by A & C Black under the Bloomsbury imprint - a reputable publisher) does not sell entries and is thus at least independent in the sense that the entries are not paid for. Research and evidence is needed to show that fact-checking applied to the information provided in questionnaires, though. If it is purely lifted straight from the questionnaires then that would be a primary source (although there is nothing wrong with primary sources). There may of course still be a spam issue here even if this is a reliable source. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


OK< this needs to be cleared up, can someone produce a source for the claim you can but your way in?Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Although many have tried, you can't buy or bluff your [sic] onto the list." - BBC News
OK, theh I see no reason why this would be any less reliable then then writing a book about themselves.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
That's true. But we don't usually accept all a subject's claims. Eg we have articles on people who claimed qualifications they don't have. Without factchecking how is it reliable? The same thing goes for birthdates - some people claim to be younger than they really are. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Which is why I was ambivalent in my first post here. We can use it, as long as we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • See this article in The Spectator (the house journal of the British establishment, and a publication one would expect to be fawningly deferential to the sort of people listed). Who's Who is not only notoriously inaccurate, but because they promise to respect the entries submitted by their subjects, they include inaccuracies and fabrications even when they know the entries are inaccurate or fabricated. I can't see any circumstances in which WW is a reliable source for anything other than as a primary source for the contents of WW (e.g. "Iain Duncan Smith claimed in his Who's Who entry to have attended the University of Perugia, something he later admitted fabricating" could cite the relevant WW entry as a primary source. As with our other regular dubious source, Mail Online, if Who's Who is claiming something and you can find another reliable source, use the other reliable source; if Who's Who is claiming something and you can't find another reliable source, it's highly likely to be fake. ‑ Iridescent 15:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
All this means is that it is only as inaccurate as any other primary source - a liar who is interviewed may lie, a truth-teller interviewed may tell the truth. It does not make Who's Who an unreliable source per se for what these people have said about themselves. "According to A.N. Other's Who's Who entry, their hobbies are XYZ" seems an appropriate way of treating it. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I remember reading that at the time. I have had a few friends with entries, and it was suggested that one of them had included an obviously bogus fact, which had been solemnly reproduced. This gentleman had a puckish sense of humour so it had truthiness, but I never verified it. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Avoid inclusion; self-promotional, inconsistent, all bad things for an encyclopedia. Editors should be encouraged to review an Who's Who for a Bio article we might have to see what claims can be corroborated for inclusion, but that's using good sources that can be found. --Masem (t) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Its about as useful as any other primary source. Basic biographical information is likely correct (where born, schooling etc, age is a bit more problematic). And by basic I mean the bare bones. EG if an entry says 'Blah excelled at sports when attending X school' - it wouldnt mention Blah failed all his exams and was expelled, so at best you could say they once attended school X. This is a purely made up example, but there are plenty of entries in Who's Who UK that are thinly disguised whitewashes, its about as trusted as a Daily Mail interview. To follow up on Iri's comment above. If IDS claimed in an interview he attended a certain university, and we had no evidence he didnt, it would likely be included in his biography until some reason to suspect it was false. The alternative is assuming everyone lies about everything about themselves. Which may be accurate, but unfair. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • There are some facets of a bio article that if the only source is a self-statement that we should be cautious to include. Where someone grew up or went to school, that's reasonable to include from a self-statement. But stating something like they were their valedictorian of their class, or won a obscure award, or the like, that's something I'd not include if the only source is that self-statement. --Masem (t) 00:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ha. Reading that Spectator article, I was just left wondering whether Wikipedia is an ersatz Who's Who, or is Who's Who an ersatz Wikipedia? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Game Data Library

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Has anyone ever heard about Game Data Library? It has been added to a few pages like Go Vacation and Luigi's Mansion and, as per the discussion over on Anthonymouses talkpage I cant find anything about it on Google. Thoughts? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago22 comments16 people in discussion

In considering that DM is treated as a blacklisted source, should information published in other RSes that point back to a DM story as the originating point be considered tainted by the DM and thus these individual stories be unusable for WP? (Or at least the parts that tie back to the DM information?)

Specific case in point: with news that we have a new Ghostbusters film coming, DM published a piece [37] that includes statements from actor Ernie Hudson that would be considered appropriate for inclusion if they came from any other source but DM. Several other sources (Esquire, Consquences of Sound among others) are repeating the information from Hudson all linked to the DM story. My gut says we should consider this information tainted due to DM, and wait for a corroboration from an independent source before adding it. --Masem (t) 16:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My gut goes the other way; when another source reuses content from DM, they are staking their own editorial reputation upon that usage, and for sources generally considered scrupulously reliable, that's good enough for me. We're not saying that material published in DM is guaranteed to be wrong. If it has been republished by sources we would normally trust, then it has passed that source's trustworthy vetting process, and we can trust it. It's the material that is unique to the DM that I worry about. If real journalists have vetted it, I'm no longer worried. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It can be looked at both ways. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I can see that, but I think it's like a net sum game, and we have to consider the quality of the RS repeating what the DM said. If it were the NYTimes repeating DM's information, that would be more than enough to me to offset the DM reliability issue. On the other hand, at least in the case of these Ghostbuster stories, I feel most of these sources are mid-tier RS, and not strong enough to get over the potential reliability problems of the DM. --Masem (t) 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If they're attributing the report in-text to the Daily Mail, they may not have verified any of it. Case in point: Consequence of Sound was one of the outlets that had a write-up on that fake Dwayne Johnson interview where he supposedly bashed "generation snowflake" - Johnson presumably could have told them the whole interview was a fabrication if they had asked him to confirm the story. Nblund talk 20:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
That's my impression when I've come onto mid-quality RSes quoting or reiterating information that has a dubious edge on it from a low-quality blog or from social media, information that would require insider information. These mid-tier sources seem to report without some corroboration of their own. --Masem (t) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 
A reliable source reports content from the Daily Mail – SemiHypercube
NO, as they are RS and thus are presumed to have checked the story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe: it depends on exactly what our article would say. Assuming this is about the announcement of three original actors reprising their roles in a reboot movie, DM is blurring the lines. Its headline says Hudson "confirmed" the three actors "will reprise their roles" but that doesn't seem to be true. What Hudson actually said in the video interview was: "Ivan Reitman is there and everybody is in. Now whether the studio will do it, I'm the guy who sits by the phone and waits for the call. So if they call, I'll answer. If not, I've got other stuff that I’m doing." Esquire qualified that, publishing the full quote followed by: "That presumably means that Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd are bang up for a reuniting..." (bold added). COS published the full quote and then points out that since the DM/Hudson story broke, Sony released the movie trailer (meaning "the studio called"), and they point to a couple tweets from Aykroyd indicating his willingness to be in the movie, though Murray has not yet commented. So I don't think we can write that the three actors will be in the movie, sourced to any of it. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning that one of the actors said he'd do the movie if the studio called. However, if we're writing that the media is reporting that two of three actors have shown interest in reprising their roles, then I think that could be cited to Esq and COS, and it doesn't matter that they're relying on DM, because in this case, they're actually citing Hudson's own words in a video interview that just happened to be given to DMTV, so DM is just a conduit and not really a source of information (it's not like there is any suggestion they faked or edited the video interview). That said, give it a little more time, and there will probably be a much more solid official announcement, and the whole issue will resolve itself. Levivich? ! 23:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Daily Mail is not blacklisted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It might as well be, no matter how hard the Daily Mail fanbois try to fudge the issue to pretend it's usable. And in this case, using the Daily Mail is not worth the thin "fact" it's trying to justify. --Calton | Talk 09:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
" to pretend it's usable" {{citation needed}}
There are no DM fanbois. No one has had a positive comment for it. But it's not "banned", as the single-position biased editors amongst those against it certainly claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the Daily Mail is not blacklisted. Currently, the only two sources that are both deprecated and blacklisted are Breitbart News and InfoWars. — Newslinger talk 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally usable. That the DM was the first to break a story does not suppress said story from the public wiki record - if it were, it would be our Daily Censor. If a WP:RS reports facts in each own voice (not attributed but to the DM - and giving credit ("first reported") is not attribution) - it doesn't matter if the DM broke this first, as the RS is reporting it in its own voice, and the information made it through the RS's controls. The situation is more trick when a RS reports that "according to the DM, X has done Y" - in this case, we should assume that some editorial checks were performed at the RS, however we need to be more careful (particularly if this was reported by the RS due to some extreme sensationalism (i.e the reporting of the DM was the news, not the news items itself)). However, even if attributed, if multiple RSes see fit to state that the DM has reported something - it is quite possibly DUE for inclusion. 11:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)
  • Perfectly usable. The Daily Mail is not blacklisted. It can be perfectly well be used when it is not the sole source. It is a mainstream British paper, mmkay? Furthermore, WP:RS which rely on DM reportages are perfectly valid sources. XavierItzm (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Copyright is a valid issue In the case that other sources use a quote which is in a copyrighted article found in the DM and is so attributed by that source then it is a clear violation of copyright for us to use the source and not acknowledge the holder of the copyright. I suggest that the EU laws are even stricter than this position. I further note that the "monkey selfie" issue where I opined a few times that WP must, if it has any sense of law at all, obey copyright laws and decisions. Publication of anything does not mean we can ignore copyright.Collect (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Attribution isn't a full defence against copyright infringement in any jurisdiction that I know of. The main question is whether the copying is "substantial". Simply describing facts, in different words and in a different way, should not ordinarily lead to infringement. The reason the papers often give attribution is 1) courtesy, 2) defamation (i.e., they are attributing the statements to a source rather than saying they are their own views), 3) accuracy. FOARP (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally usable, possibly requires attribution. A reliable source can be used to support the claim that the Daily Mail reported something, provided that the statement is attributed to the Daily Mail and that the information constitutes due weight (which should be discussed at the neutral point of view noticeboard). If, in addition to claiming that the Daily Mail reported something, the reliable source also provides original content that further substantiates the Daily Mail's reporting, then the information is usable and attribution is not necessary. — Newslinger talk 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it good practice to include in text attribution when citing ANY news source. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
​To clarify, if a reliable source provides original news coverage that corroborates the Daily Mail's reports while only mentioning the Daily Mail in passing, then the reliable source should be referenced (usually with attribution) while the Daily Mail does not need to be attributed. — Newslinger talk 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd be cautious based on Levivich's analysis. Maybe this is one to hold off on until a clearer confirmation is provided. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I've added "Generally" in front of "usable" to clarify that this is my position on the general case. I agree with Levivich on this specific case, and note that statements in an article should be more clearly attributed when they are tenuous or controversial. — Newslinger talk 22:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, when something in an unreliable source is covered by a reliable secondary (or tertiary) source, we can cite it to the secondary source; if this weren't the case, we wouldn't be able to cite anything, since all reporting ultimately comes down to someone doing original research on a primary source. Taking information from places like tweets, reddit posts, or (yes) the Daily Mail and turning it into a reliable news story is part of what a WP:RS does, and using secondary coverage to report on such primary sources that would not themselves be usable is standard practice. That said, it's important to rely on the actual secondary source being used (including its tone, weight, any disclaimers it uses, whether it attributes what it's saying and how cautious it is in doing so and so on), rather than just taking it as a blank check to include whatever we want from the unreliable primary source. Note that this has nothing to do with the reliability of the DM as a source - I'm of the opinion that assessing the reliability of our sources' sources is usually outside of what we're supposed to do, since it's essentially WP:OR, and since taking unreliable sources and verifying them, analyzing them, performing synthesis with them, and otherwise turning them into reliable content is what a reliable source does. --Aquillion (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Context matters. If an article published by a reliable source simply reblogs content from the Daily Mail (or any other source considered unreliable), and there is no evidence that the RS has performed their own verification, then that article probably won't be considered reliable. An example: Apple Daily, a Hong Kong newspaper (and the only major left-of-centre newspaper in Hong Kong), is generally considered reliable for local news; however, they frequently publish news articles on their website that are largely based on those of British tabloids such as the Daily Mirror (e.g. [38], [39]), The Sun (e.g. [40]), and the Daily Mail (e.g. [41]). Based on my experience, Apple Daily doesn't do much fact checking to see if the original article was accurate. It's still an RS for Hong Kong news, but clearly these Apple Daily articles on international news aren't any more reliable than the source. feminist (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ecastles.co.uk

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I came across this site a while back, I checked the site and could find no indication at all that it meets WP:RS (there isn't even an About page). The only reference to the site owners is "©Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales", and Google links that straight back to the original website and this personal web page, which I think is the owner. Nothing about this says WP:RS, but I have had one removal challenged so I am bringing it here. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Tend to agree wit the above, unless it can be shown he is an regarded expert in his field.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Is Gustav Solomon Oppert work a reliable source ?

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

Recently I added a view by Dr. Gustav Solomon Oppert to article Vanniyar but Sitush (talk · contribs) immediately termed it as unreliable as it supposedly belonged to the British Colonial India and removed the edit. On the other hand Sitush seems to be okay quoting material from other sources that were based upon events that transpired during the Colonial period in India when it favors his POV. So requesting other users to comment on the reliability of this source.

Article: Vanniyar

Content:

..the Pallis or Pallavas of southern India once held a very high position, as rulers of the country, at the time of the invasions of the Chalukyas..

Source: [1]

  1. ^ Kumar Suresh Singh. People of India: Andhra Pradesh (3 pts.). Anthropological Survey of India, 1992. p. 146.

Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Depends, its a very old source and modern scholarship may have overturned it. But he was an notable expert in his field, and so might be OK if attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Dr.Oppert's view as per the above content lends credence to the view that the Pallis (also called Vanniyar) are the Pallavas. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This does seem to be a view form about 80 years ago [[42]]], but finding no more modern scholarship. But POV (as in "its British" (even if it is in fact German)) is not a valid objection to a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (with Bish) Who has suggested the problem is that it is British? Or German? I am mystified yet again. The issues with British Raj era sources is HISTRS, methodology, prevailing theories, inherent credulousness, purpose not being academic etc. Nothing much to do with nationality of the authors. If you don't know what you're talking about, say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The OP said "belonged to the British Colonial India", thus I took that to mean the objection was to it being a source from the British empire. Now I had no idea what had been said between you two, and had to assume what is says is an accurate reflection of the dispute. Looking (now) at the talk page you say Raj era. So it was the OP that suggested it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand that. But why on earth not look at the situation before commenting? Anyone who hangs around the boards as much as you do should be aware that caste topics are contentious and complaints often misrepresented. AS for the OP, I think it would have been better if they had notified me of this discussion, and even more so if they had put a notification in the relevant article talk page thread, which is what I am about to do if no-one has beaten me to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Because I answered the question he asked (it it would not be the first time a wider issue has been placed within a more specific issue, would it?, and he does seem to be trying to make a wider point) If you look I make it clear I am not sure about the source (note the stuff about modern scholarship), because of its age. But I also stand by the idea that whilst a "raj era" source may not be RS for facts, it is an RS for its opinion. And thus (as long as the claim is attributed) is could be included. I see nothing that dissuades me from that opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
As to this not being about British sources, so would a source published in (say) 1896 be an RS for any fact about Indian myth or history?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Have you read the information Bish and I have linked to below or are you just continuing what seems to be a stream of conciousness? I'm reminded of A. E. Housman: "Three minutes thought would have told him he was wrong; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time". Please, step back, read up on the background and consider the implications of what you suggest as it applies to a notoriously awkward topic area that is subject to not one but two different sanctions regimes. I spend far too much time here retreading old ground and it is tiresome, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
What am I suggesting, I asked you if "not sources form the era of the RAj" is a blanket ban on all sources form that era, its a suimple yes or not (and by the way, your user page does not have the force of policy).Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Not interested. You're wasting my time, just as you do that of many others. I'd rather get on with building the encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. Sitush and his cronies term any and all resources that talk of a Palli-Pallava connection as being unreliable. They remove any edits made to the article if it talks of a Pallava connection no matter how reliable the source is. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not true, and I resent the suggestion that I am tag-teaming or something similar. I am my own person. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I note that Nittawinoda has now in at least three different places offered the hair-raising argument that because sources written during the Raj era (a period of "scientific racism", see [43]) are unreliable for Wikipedia, there is some sort of problem with using modern academic sources about events during the Raj era. Here, on my talkpage, and on his own talkpage. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what one thing has to do with another. Are these events supposed to never be spoken of? Edit warring based on such clueless reasoning will soon lead to a block or ban. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

User Nittawinoda has been focused on messing up caste articles indulging in false glorification, Sources provided by Nittawinoda are not reliable. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Not all of them have been unreliable but many have because I think they've fallen into the trap of searching for specific things that they want to prove rather than reading generally and just reflecting the outcome of that reading. It is a common mistake. We're drifting off-topic anyway with comments like this. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the consensus on using Dr. Oppert's source as a reference? I see that atleast one other editor Slatersteven (talk · contribs) is alright with using it as a reference in the Vanniyar article. Nittawinoda (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda: I can't find any reason to use it. I can find a couple of academic references to his work on Jewish issues and one on his Prester John work. And the Jstor article "A Longing for India: Indophilia among German-Jewish Scholars of the Nineteenth Century". Evidently "He developed the theory of a pre-Aryan/Semitic race called Bharatas in India. Basing his theory on language and religion, 'which in matters of this kind are the most reliable and precious sources of information,'[his words] he claimed that these agricultural Bharatas - a branch of the Finnish-Hungarian race - had settled in India before they were invaded by the pastoralist Aryan and Semitic ancestors". He said that as they worshipped a matriarchal deity they were inferior to the invaders. I don't think I'd touch him with a barge pole for the suggested purpose. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
A barge pole is about 4 meters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
But in the UK it is commonly said that "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot bargepole". 4 m (13 ft). Oh, well, that's metrication for you! - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Nittawinoda, the consensus is going to be "not reliable". I think even Slatersteven may now realise this. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Do not put words into users mouths, I have asked a question you have refused to answer, are all 19thc sources about India unreliable? Do not take my agreeing (by qauiescence) to stop talking about this with you due to your desire to stop talking to me about it as agreement, it is curtsy. I would not have responded here to you but for you misrepresentation of my position.10:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
I said I think. You're a timesink and, frankly, a clueless nuisance, so I've no actual interest in your opinion anyway. I've already answered your question if only you bothered to read the links that were given. Those links collate stuff precisely to save time, not to waste more of it. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Another reason to see that the proposed source and text is not suitable is to consider that it says "once held a very high position, as rulers of the country". That is a WP:REDFLAG claim. If true, there would be multiple reliable sources with detailed information. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

stopterrorfinance.org

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm looking for input on whether the website https://stopterrorfinance.org/, operated by The Consortium Against Terrorist Finance, should be considered a reliable source. I realize this may be a little late since the website no longer works, but it's still in use as a source for a lot of articles such as Wahhabism, Qatar Charity, Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism, Madid Ahl al-Sham, Army of Conquest, Al-Qaeda, and Qatar Investment Authority. In every instance it's used as a source, it pertains only controversies surrounding Qatar, strangely enough. It is used as a source for this rather controversial and vague statement in Wahhabism:

The Assalam Mosque is located in Nantes, France was also a source on some controversy. Construction on the mosque began in 2009 and was completed in 2012. It is the largest mosque in its region in France. The mosque is frequently listed among examples of Qatar’s efforts to export Wahhabism, their extreme and often intolerant version of Islam, throughout Europe.

Another interesting quote which I found on the Al-Qaeda article attributed to this website is:

Qatar finances al-Qaeda's enterprises through al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. The funding is primarily channeled through kidnapping for ransom. The Consortium Against Terrorist Finance (CATF) reported that the Gulf country has funded al-Nusra since 2013.

This is contentious because according to FT: "Yet allegations that the Qataris have – directly or indirectly – helped Jabhat al-Nusrah have not gone away. At least one Arab government recently said as much, although experts on jihadi movements say the extremist group’s funding comes from al-Qaeda in Iraq and from private donors in the Gulf, not from governments." A statement as contentious as this should be very well-supported.

The website has 47 results for "Qatar", which is more than all the other Persian Gulf states combined (Saudi Arabia has 16 results, UAE has 3 results, Bahrain has 4 results, and Kuwait has 8 results); it's also worth mentioning that most of these hits for the other Gulf countries are mostly mentions in articles focused on Qatar's activities. I bring this point up because the terrorism financing of Qatar certainly doesn't surpass that of its neighbors like this website seems to suggest, leading me to question its reliability as the sole source for Qatar-related controversies. Several websites and organizations have been created by Qatar's neighbors to denigrate its image as a result of political disputes (such as the similar sounding www.stopqatarnow.com), and this doesn't look very different. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems a dead link as is their use on Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
On the face of it, I'm perplexed by its link between Wahhabism and Qatar, as I'm sure Wahhabism is more typically considered to be more centred on Saudi Arabia than Qatar (§Definitions and etymology has some background on this; although the perceived idolatry of having an eponymous "branch" of Islam muddies the water somewhat), and the two countries are fairly distinct from one another, especially following the recent political falling-out between the two countries (to the point that deliberate misinformation against Qatar does not seem implausible). I'm honestly skeptical of the claims in the source, although I can't say I know the literature well enough to provide alternatives/contradictions off-the-cuff. Are there any other sources that reliably substantiate the claims? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I looked for reliable sources for both quoted statements. For the Assalam mosque, it goes without saying there's some controversy, but nothing like what's written in the Wahhabism article - in fact I'm pretty sure I read that same sentence 100 times before with 'Saudi Arabia' instead of 'Qatar' the other 99 times. Even the Gatestone Institute, while wary of Qatar's influence on Qatar, doesn't make any claims of exporting Wahhabism or terrorism or whatever, nor is Qatar's specific form of Wahhabism considered an "extreme and intolerant version" (it's more liberal than Saudi's). For the second sentence, as with most allegations of funding groups during the Syrian Civil War, it is very hard to prove. While there are allegations that Qatar supported Al Nusra with weapons (whether directly or indirectly) to topple Assad, there's no concrete dates or proof that there was official contact between the state and group rather than private donors and the group (see FT article above).
To me, this has all the hallmarks of an Emirati or Saudi smear website, similar to the way the UAE uses the Foundation for Defense of Democracies to try and influence the US' relationship with Qatar through misconstrued facts (the FDD is also used as references on some of the articles above), and also similar to the UAE's release of several multimillion dollar movies accusing Qatar of terrorism. In fact it strikes me that all of the articles above were edited by a paid editor, and I'm pretty sure I found 4 socks of the same user who has a very special and unique interest in writing only about Qatar's ties to 'terrorism' using mostly primary sources, FDD and stopterrorfinance.com. I found it all very suspect since they account for probably the majority of edits to any Qatar-related topics in the past several years aside from my own edits. Anyway sorry for the wall of text - I recognized my own bias on this messy topic and don't want to be unilaterally 'white-wash' these articles without hearing community input. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanity presses

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

It seems that Filter 894 (log) has had no meaningful effect on the rate of addition of self-published material from vanity presses. The filter picks up:

Note that these searches turn up only a subset of the likely total, search is not especially reliable, regex searches in CirrusSearch are expensive and a definitive search, for example, /publisher\s*-\s*author\s*house/i, times out.

There is definitely a mix here of outright spamming, good-faith additions by people who don't know about the vanity press model, and a very small minority that are, by consensus, legitimate sources.

In many cases the links are not to the publisher's website, they are to Google Books or Amazon (a problem in itself), so just blacklisting the domains would not fix the problem.

What, if anything, can we do about this? I must have removed several thousand references to vanity presses over time and the numbers are growing much faster than any one person can remove them. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Strengthening MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished might help. The icon can be changed to File:Information orange.svg or File:Nuvola apps important.svg, the same ones used in level 2-3 warning templates. The message can include a sentence, preferably in bold, briefly explaining and linking to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If this isn't effective, then the message should also caution editors that spamming will lead to a block, and inform them that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags (as seen in {{Uw-spam3}}). — Newslinger talk 13:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
That is easy to do, so I have done it. Let's see if it makes a difference. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks great. — Newslinger talk 14:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the strengthening of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished, but if I am allowed to, I have a suggestion concerning the grammar:

and can lead to your being blocked or banned from Wikipedia (current)
and may lead to you being blocked or banned from Wikipedia (suggested rephrasing)

I am not a native speaker though. --Leyo 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

​The words can and your are technically correct in this context, since can expresses the possibility of something happening, and your being is allowed according to Merriam-Webster's usage notes. I think your suggested rephrasing sounds more natural when read out loud, though. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe it's copied from the warning templates. It's a templated message anyway: {{edit filter warning}}. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the grammar lesson. --Leyo 22:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

e-flux: Museum press-release consolidator for a fee

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The site e-flux.com (articles: e-flux, e-flux publications, Supercommunity) appears to be a website that accepts press releases and other material for a fee from museums and other cultural organizations, and publishes them on their site. See the paragraph under heading, "What are e-flux's announcements?" on their About page. Dozens of articles on Wikipedia on artists, curators, galleries, and museums use this site as a source. This doesn't sound very much like a reliable source to me. Can we get opinions on this? Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why we would need to use this rather then the originals anyway. I think we need to know what it is being used for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Click the link for examples. It's also used at the e-flux article itself, but maybe that one is okay. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Compendium of Pesticide Common Names

Latest comment: 5 years ago29 comments12 people in discussion

A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Mass removals which is (in my opinion) becoming heated and drifting in unproductive directions. The basic issue is in the specialty area of this noticeboard and would benefit from broader input, so I am starting a discussion here. The relevant parts of the discussion so far:

  • JzG has been removing references in chemistry articles to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names. A recent example is this removal of a reference to this page that is used to support the assertion that "triazofos is a chemical compound used in acaricides, insecticides, and nematicides." Objections to removals of references to the PAN Pesticide Database have also been raised.
  • Edgar181 and Leyo have objected to removals on the grounds that the articles are worse without the references or replacements being included, and also questioned JzG's expertise in chemistry. Edgar181 has posted that "I have found [the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names] to be an entirely accurate database (much more so than sources such as, for example, the PubChem database which is much more widely used on Wikipedia chemistry articles). I have used it mainly out of convenience because it is so easy to source this basic information. I have no objection if someone wants to replace it with a different source, but I object to the simple blanket deletion of all references citing this source."
  • JzG has pointed out that evidence of editorial oversight or other indicia are needed to establish WP:RS – which is correct, of course.
  • However, it seems to me that WP:SPS may apply to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names as it is maintained by Alan Wood, who has for several years served on the British Standards Institution / International Organization for Standardization committee that assigns common names to pesticides. This appointment is recorded on the website. Assuming this information was confirmed (which could be easily done by contacting the Secretary of the Committee), and noting that the information being provided is not controversial, would the Compendium be considered an RS under SPS?
  • JzG, would you be willing to stop these removals while a discussion is held? Edgar181, Leyo, and any others, are there other sources you wish to raise and other evidence of reliability or the expertise of the publisher to consider under SPS? The PAN Pesticide Database appears to me to be maintained by an advocacy organisation, so I am unsure that it could be used to support any controversial information.
  • I will post a notice of this discussion at WT:CHEM.

Thanks to all for your input and thoughts. EdChem (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Further thought, regarding the PAN Pesticide Database... JzG has removed this reference to the database's page on sulfur. It was supporting the statement that elemental sulfur "can cause redness in the eyes and skin, a burning sensation and a cough if inhaled, a burning sensation and diarrhea if ingested." As a chemist, I can say that I'm confident on the accuracy of the information. I'm also confident that it could be found in a much better source, like (for a start) the MSDS for sulfur. However, in removing the source, we lose the link to the symptoms which is followed by "Source for Symptoms: Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning, 5th edition, U.S. EPA, Chapter 8. March 1999. (EPA R&M)" – and so, the PAN source actually points to a vastly better source. If the conclusion is that the PAN Database is judged to be a non-RS, would providing a list of all pages on which it was used by possible so that superior sources (potentially linked from the Database) could be provided? Alternatively, would JzG restore these and allow time for replacements to be sourced? EdChem (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is routine.
There are two sites under consideration here.
Pesticide Action Network, an activist group. From their website: For too long, pesticide and biotech corporations have dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities. PAN works with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem — and reclaim the future of food and farming. Does that sound like a neutral source for toxicity data? It sounds more like the EWG's Dirty Dozen to me. In many cases their classification was being treated as a significant thing in their own right, but always self-sourced: PAN calls it highly toxic, source, PAN calling it highly toxic. They may even be right, but they have a definite dog in the fight and in virtually every case a more neutral source exists and should be used.
Alan Wood’s Web site, Alanwood.net. This is being presented as "the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names", but here's the site's About page: About Alan Wood. It is, unquestionably, a personal website, a one man project by a retired information scientist. Alan Wood appears to be a smart man and certainly knowledgeable, but it's a personal website. There's no editorial board, no oversight, none of the indicia of RS. We're being asked here to accept that he is sufficiently expert on his chosen fields - character sets, microscopes and toxicology - that we can take his word as fact despite lack of any peer review. I can see how we'd get away with that for character sets (some of his WP:HOWTO content is very useful) but for toxicology, we're into WP:MEDRS territory.
Thus, I removed both. Because removing unreliable sources is kind of my thing. And yes, it gets pushback sometimes, because these sites are often considered useful or interesting, but we do have this whole thing about reliability and independence. A site can be right about something and still not reliable. Reliability is not judged by our personal review of information for accuracy, after all. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
re PAN: I don't see how "activist group" and "works ... to tackle the pesticide problem" could be mentioned to claim a disqualification. Every newspaper we cite, every company, every government policy and what else, all may have a policy running (not always hidden), and so have a dog and an interest in the race. I do not understand what your reference to Dirty Dozen means. (This article has half a dozen sources straight from the producing company). -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
With respect for all of the participants in this discussion, based on what I see, I oppose citations to PAN and any SPS or blogs. For me an "activist group" and "works ... to tackle the pesticide problem" is absolutely a disqualification. SPS's generally devolve into something spammy or vain, often praising the author and his credentials. I want agenda-less sources. Nothing is perfect, but starting with an agenda seems unlikely path to provide info that will allow readers to draw their own conclusions. We have been through some of this type of debate with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a collection of many PhD's (with lofty sounding titles) with the specific agenda of discrediting the use of fluoride for dental health. FAN basically doesnt exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I wrote that "activism" by itself is not an argument. There may be other arguments sure, but not that one. IOW, once that part of the argumentation is struck (removed), does the objection still stand? And inverse: if activist Greenpeace has a sample researched for toxity, does that make the result not OK? -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Well you are making it difficult. Personally I dont like the term activist. Being a tree-hugger, I admire some aspects of Greenpeace, but as an editor I would hope that we can get sources other than Greenpeace to support our text.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
A pressure group, which PAN is, can't be an authority for information on the thing they are committed to doing away with. They may or may not have a valid view, which could be quoted if it's noted by independent sources, but being an NGO does not confer any legitimacy here. DePiep, this is perfectly normal. We can quote activist organisations if their views are independently assessed as significant, but we can't accept them as an authority in competition to the governmental bodies covering the same subject area. I take it that the personal website is not controversial here. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Is what I am saying from start: the fact that they do advocacy does not say anything about being a RS. No status (NGO or other) by itself can claim authority or reliability. Nor does it do the opposite. Your argument is elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I am addressing that specifically. There is no evidence of authority, and its status as a pressure group indicates that caution is merited, therefore we should not present it as an authority. Which is exactly how we normally handle these things. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear since my comments were copied here from another discussion: I have added alanwood.net as a reference to chemistry articles because I find that I can rely on its factual accuracy; I object to its blanket removal from Wikipedia articles unless it is replaced with another source. For the other website, the PAN Pesticide Database, I am sympathetic with those that have expressed concerns about using it as a source, especially for potentially controversial content, based on its perceived lack of neutrality. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, though, WP:IFINDITACCURATE is not policy whereas WP:RS is. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
But "WP:IFINDITACCURATE" and WP:RS are not distinct. WP:RS unavoidably relies on editors making judgements about the accuracy of sources. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no. Breitbart has an editorial process and article review, but we find it unreliable. But a one man site with no editorial process? It's very, very unusual to find one of those counted as reliable. The only one I can remember was so massively spammed by its owner that people just assumed it was dependable. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There's pretty much no question that PAN, a fringe advocacy group, should not have ever been used as a source due to lack of fact checking, so removing that is pretty uncontroversial. The Alan Wood site is indeed an SPS, so that shouldn't really be reached outright, but the WP:ONUS is on those wanting to include specific content.
I can't figure out why people are making a fuss over removing those sources though. The sources were either removed without removing the content or else it's there in the article history. There's no need to stretch for a low quality source though. There's NPIRS' database or straight from the EPA that includes pesticides that aren't currently registered in the US. Those are also much more likely to remain updated compared to a personal website. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Alan Wood's website (Compendium of Pesticides Common Names) doesn't violate WP:SPS:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Wood has been a member of the BSI/ISO committee and can therefore be considered an established expert. He's still the chairperson of the technical committee within ISO standardizing common names for pesticides and agrochemicals. An ISO Standard is a reliable third-party publication.
The compendium itself is updated within weeks of ISO's updates.
The compendium is also a reliable source used in a website chemists all over the world (in both academic and industrial environment) utilize daily: ChemSpider is created by the Royal Society of Chemistry. And it is one of the reference sources for the Göttingen State and University Library.
Furthermore, Wood's work was referenced in a peer-reviewed journal in 2003: Chemie in unserer Zeit is maintained by the Society of German Chemists.
I have no objection in the use of the compendium as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.
Georginho (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
One cite 15 years ago? Er, right. And it seems that Chemspider has the review that Wood's website does not, so we can cite that instead. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the age of a citation matters. In an academic article, pesticides are referred to by their common names without the authors having to cite sources to prove that these common names are correct. The article I link was used by the author to bring Wood's website to the attention of a broader scientific community.
The downside of ChemSpider is its crowdsourcing aspect. It's meant to be a database of millions of molecules, as an alternative to, e.g., CAS. ChemSpider is free, but it needs crowdsourcing. CAS is proprietary, but it's reliable because the molecules are entered by full-time scientists in one center in the US. If you ask chemists (like myself) and agrochemists, they will certainly use Wood's compendium as reference work, not ChemSpider.
Georginho (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure. And the downside of Wood's website is its no-other-sourcing aspect. There does not appear to be any indepndent review of content, so unless he is infallible we should not be using this as a source in this way. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the no-other-sourcing and independent-review bits. WP:SPS gives room for established experts. He's one. He updates his compendium according to ISO updates. His work is accepted as reliable by chemists from what we've seen in the academic article I mentioned above and even in the patent I linked below. Chemists at the biggest agrochemical company in the world view Wood's compendium as an important source, so significant that it was included in their patent.
I don't understand your objection in using his website. Chemists at WikiProject Chemistry accept it as authoritative. Will it be easier for you if we can invite any agrochemist editor to give his/her opinion here (albeit I'm not sure how to find one)? Or shall we contact a couple of agrochemical companies like Syngenta and Bayer? Or we can contact an agrochemist professor (which may be easier).
Georginho (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this person also an "expert" in the greek alphabet, Microsoft Word, Mac OS fonts, pesticides or the dozens of other articles this website (which really appears to be a hobby site) this is spammed on? I'd say this is closer to refspam than anything that satisfies reasonable inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • From what I can see, PAN, apart from failing as an RS (its an advocacy group, you might as well cite PETA for facts about animals instead of a biologist published by an independant reliable publisher), was being used in part for medical information, and PAN doesnt come remotely close to being MEDRS compliant. RE Wood's website. Its clearly a self-published website and so only useable per SPS. Is he an expert? I would say given his career he certainly qualifies as an expert on "standardizing common names for pesticides and agrochemicals." I would even extend that to general information about pesticides. I am not so certain he would qualify as an expert for everything about chemicals/pesticides though at a more technical level. I cant imagine if its contained in his website it couldnt be found in more reliable sources. Like any SPS I would say the individual content matters. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    I wonder if anyone has read http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Docs/data.html#AccuracyofData prior to stating an opinion on the reliability of this database. --Leyo 01:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This paraphrases what I just wrote over here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Mass removals. I agree that pesticideinfo.org and alanwood.org are self-published and thus fail WP:RS. I also believe that both are very accurate, but that is beside the point. My point is that simply removing all citations to them without replacing them with better sources is more problematic than leaving things alone. It would be better leave them in place and add an appropriate sourcing template (like "questionable source" or "medical source needed" or whatever) than to have no source at all. This is especially true when the information being sourced is not in dispute and the existing source, like pesticideinfo.org, provides the references to more authoritative and WP-compliant sources. In other words, pesticideinfo.org provides citations to reliable sources for just about everything it says. So rather than completely removing the citation to pesticideinfo.org it would be better to change the citation to whatever pesticideinfo.org is citing. But that's a lot of work. If you are not willing to do it yourself, at least give others to opportunity to by leaving the citation to pesticideinfo.org in, and adding a tag. Nothing is gained by leaving things unsourced. (At least when we're talking about content that no one disputes. I agree that more aggressive removals are called for if there's an actual content dispute, but that's not the case here.) Yilloslime (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    Actually 'removing but leaving the material if its not contentious' is a perfectly fine option where the material is likely correct but needs a better source. See WP:CHALLENGE part of WP:V. The only time material should be removed outright when the source fails reliability - is if its obviously suspect in some way, or its material related to a living person per WP:BLP. So thats well in line with current written policy and practice. Keep in mind that an alternative is that any editor would be justified in removing the material outright because of obviously SPS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly these references should not be removed without replacing them. alanwood.org is very likely accurate given that the person is an expert. That site will not fail the RS just because it is self published. There may be better sources with more oversight and checking, but until they are located and inserted the others should not be removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I strongly support the use of the compendium.
Georginho (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to mention that PAN Pesticide Database has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force as a useful source for not less than 9 years—without having been disputed. This clearly shows that no single user may just go through all articles and remove this reference without seeking consensus before. --Leyo 10:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Radio Farda and some other sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I would like to ask if Radio Farda can be considered a reliable source on the Sepideh Gholian. In addition I know that HRW is RS but is this source reliable? Saff V. (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Also how about the reliability of this community on this article?Saff V. (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, as it used to be a white propaganda station during the cold war. I would so OK with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven:, Are all three OK?Saff V. (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Ahh I see, Radio Farda is part of radio free Europe (the thing I was referring to). HRW (as far as I know) a general considered an RS for their views, but needs attribution. iranhumanrights, unsure about, might be better to use clear cut RS, anything they say worthy of inclusion will appear elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
RFE/RL is a serious news organization and should be considered reliable, but I think attribution is called for on subjects that are close to its propagandistic mission. Eperoton (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
There are issues in using RFE/RL due to their propaganda mission. HOWEVER, the issues with Iranian media - which is regime controlled, journalists are intimidated (and imprisoned/killed), and is mainly a regime mouthpiece (see RSF, Freedom House) - is far greater. Given the state of reporting from within Iran, RFE/RL is an important source - better than any inner-Iranian source. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What Culture

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

When searching for sources, this is one site that has popped up many times over the years. Past discussion has indicated it as an unreliable source. It's easy to see why, because anyone can write for it. However, there's also staff writers like Simon Gallagher. Perhaps we should use this as a case-by-case thing, much like Sputnikmusic and Dotdash (formerly About.com)? Kokoro20 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd avoid it for RS, fine for RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 17:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say avoid as well. I would not call it UNreliable... but anything it covers will have better, far MORE reliable sources easily available. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Not even sure about opinion if it is user generated.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Except, it's not entirely user generated. Articles written by staff do exist, like I mention above. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but to what degree? We would have to have an "only if written by staff", and even then do the staff just rewrite user generated content, is there an editorial policy? There are just too many possible problems for us to not just go to better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
What is the purpose of using this website as a source? Is What Culture used as a review (i.e. opinion) or for statements of fact? feminist (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Argentine speleology source

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Greetings,

do people think that this publication is a reliable source for lava tubes in the Payún Matrú volcanic field? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

who is Carlos Benedetto?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the president of the Argentine Speleological Society. I see his name mentioned a number of times in newspapers, when the context is Argentine caves. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure that is enough, what are his quantifications?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
They exist for all to see.[1] EEng 13:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Also as president of then body that published this there may well be issues of SPS as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
He has a paper published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Speleology, accessible here. Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That means that would be an RS (possibly), not something published by the organisation he heads.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Math/logic joke.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion concerning container categories for predatory journals. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Government shutdowns in Europe

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a discussion at Talk:Government shutdown about whether a failure to form a government in a parliamentary system (such as the 2007–11 Belgian political crisis) has been called a "government shutdown" in sufficiently reliable sources to cover it in the same article. More input is requested. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

World of Kamon/家紋World (harimaya.com/kamon) for Karita clan

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Is World of Kamon (a.k.a. 家紋World) a reliable source for the Karita clan draft? Also, does this source provide significant coverage of the Karita clan? The source is in Japanese, and is difficult for me to assess. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan — Newslinger talk 02:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_257&oldid=905151069"