Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Hi. Is Xinhua News Agency a reliable source for a claim that 50 countries signed the letter supporting China's policies on Xinjiang?[1] In the Xinjiang re-education camps article it used to say that 50 countries signed the letter supporting China, but that was later changed to the original 37 because of questions about the reliability of the source. The Account 1 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not overly, as it is state run. Reading it rings alarm bells.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid state run news agencies if their editorial board is not independent(for ex. BBC) --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not reliable for this claim, although it's appropriate to include it with attribution for the claim that China stated that 50 countries had signed it. As an additional concern, while the original provided source gives a list of which 37 countries signed the letter, the Xinhua article does not state which additional countries are among these supposed 50. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable in this context. I agree with Rosguill: this Xinhua claim may be eligible for inclusion in the Xinjiang re-education camps article with in-text attribution to Xinhua (and a note that it's a state-owned news agency) as a primary source equivalent. If the "50 countries" claim (and the discrepancy between the "37" and "50" counts) receives broader coverage in reliable sources, an appropriate amount of their commentary should also be included. In general, Xinhua is similar to TASS (RSP entry), and the reliability of its claims partly depends on how they would reflect on China's image. — Newslinger talk 01:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I found a source from Bitter Winter showing the list of the additional countries that joined in.[2] Is it reliable? The Account 1 (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsure, no idea who they are.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm also uncertain as to Bitter Winter's general reputation. Setting that aside, the actual content of that article supports the claim that the Chinese governments have claimed that 50 countries signed (and specified the additional 13), but it's not clear that it supports the claim that these countries actually signed the letter, per the phrasing The CCP has now announced that 13 more have signed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of Bitter Winter. It's published by CESNUR, an advocacy group for controversial quasi-religious organizations including the Church of Scientology, New Acropolis, Aum Shinrikyo, and the Order of the Solar Temple. The polemical "China Recruits 13 More in its Axis of Shame" article states that "Some media have now published a list, which seems authentic" and provides a screenshot of a spreadsheet, but doesn't say where it came from.

The Washington Post (RSP entry) published more details in "China celebrates ‘very happy lives’ in Xinjiang, after detaining 1 million Uighurs": "The Foreign Ministry declined to supply the letter or the list of the 50 countries to The Washington Post, even though it has been all over state media this week, saying it was up to the Human Rights Council to release the information." I haven't found a list of the 13 missing countries from a usable source yet. — Newslinger talk 05:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Diplomat provides a list of the original 37 countries. The difference between that list and Bitter Winter's list of 50 countries is the following 13 countries: Bangladesh, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Mozambique, Nepal, Palestine, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Zambia. If there are reliable sources that show the support of these countries, then we can take the "50 countries" claim more seriously. Note that Qatar withdrew its support, so the number of supporting countries may have dropped to 36 or 49. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

After search up a little bit, I found that IRNA also reported about signing this letter so we can at least confirm that Iran signed the letter, [3] I've also found an article from The Policy Times also saying that 50 countries signed the letter [4] (don't know much about the site, seems like an Indian news agency). I also found a source from a Kuwaiti news agency. [5] There's also an Uzbek news source that also lists the new countries that are reported to have signed the letter. [6] And there's one more source from a Pakistani news agency that attributes the original text to Agence France-Presse. [7] Are any of these usable? The Account 1 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for non-controversial Government announcements or attributed declarations. I have used it extensively, for example, in List of international presidential trips made by Xi Jinping to determine dates and destinations of presidential trips, which is non-controversial and I have found it to be accurate. In this case, the claim looks dubious and I would use in-text attribution unless an actual list of countries is found. --MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable for this claim, just as for any other political claims, excluding official announcements by this government. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

while the outlet is blatant propaganda that does not necessarily follow that they are inaccurate. Bias can be reflected in story selection and writing not outright lies. MB/FC's article on it is interesting, while they agree on the propogandistic nature of the source they could not find any failed fact checks (I couldn't either). It is used by at least one RS as a source [8][9][10]. As such I would recommend caution and in text attribution on this matter though I would be interested to see the outcome of the above discussion. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The German newspaper der Freitag has a section called "Community", where anybody can create an account, log in and post articles. Are these self-published blogs, or should they carry the weight of a national newspaper for sourcing? Vashti (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

this might be instructive .... Vashti (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Blogs can be used if by notable experts, if they are just by members of the public no, they are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no sign that the author of the blog I'm looking at is a notable expert. e.g. they have no hits on der Freitag other than in the blog section. Vashti (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Then they are not an RS, this type of community blog is not edited by the host, thus is not treated as the host would be,Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Guy wrote this on my personal Talk page. He wrote on his personal Talk page (it's now archived and I can't find it) that I must now justify all my former sources for the Retrospect (software) article. So here's the first set of sources I want to justify:

The Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019 had 32 cites of TidBITS articles, of which only 6 are of articles written in 2018. The TidBITS WP article's lead says "Tidbits has been published weekly since April 16, 1990, which makes it one of the longest running Internet publications." The significance of 2018 is that it is the year after TidBITS sold off its business publishing mostly-Macintosh-oriented how-to books to one of its Contributing Editors—who still writes articles for the website. IMHO a website that for 14 years up through 2017 sold books it published is much more than a mere blog. The website to this day sells e-mailed subscriptions to its content, and offers an 30% discount on books published by the Contributing Editor's company. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, yet another go at crowbarring masses of trivia into the Retrospect article. How about not doing that? Guy (help!) 08:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why were these three sections—Small-group features and Enterprise client-server features and Editions and_Add-Ons—"trivia" when they totalled just over 1 screen page, when some of the same features are listed in the Backup Exec and NetBackup articles? The Backup Exec feature listing takes 1.6 screen pages, with no explanation of the features. The Backup Exec feature listing takes 1 screen page, again with no explanation of the features. Ah, but those articles have refs, you may say. Yes I know, since I added or repaired some of those links myself in January 2019—here for Backup Exec and here for NetBackup.

I'm rather proud of the features sections that were in the Retrospect article before Guy edited them out. Their pithy explanations rely on links as much as possible, as Scope_creep insisted upon in the fall of 2017. OTOH the feature listings in the Backup Exec and Net Backup articles have nothing but primary-source refs; most of the non-Microsoft links are ones I added myself.

I wonder why Guy insisted on replacing that 1 screen-page of features listing with 3.2 screen-lines in the lead of the current version of the Retrospect article. The features he listed are referenced by a review written in 2003; besides being 16 years out of date, that review was written before EMC bought Dantz Development Corp. and insisted on putting enterprise client-server features into Retrospect. Maybe Guy was bitten by the rushed-and-buggy 2009 version of Retrospect Mac; if so, IMHO that's a violation of WP:OR that Guy should disclose. In return I'll disclose that I and my friend have been users of Retrospect Mac since 1995, but we didn't update in 2009 and skipped 2010 through 2014 because our PowerPC "backup server" Macs had died of extreme old age. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

More WP:FORUMSHOPping. You already lost that argument. Repeatedly. The article was bloated with trivia, and you seem to be here on the basis that now the dust has settled you can go about re-bloating it. You are close to being a WP:SPA these days, focused on trying to make this article on a very niche piece of software into a product manual. Try Wikibooks instead, that is the correct place for that kind of content. Guy (help!) 12:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith. We had this discussion before and I will repeat what I wrote then: in this case, less is more for an encyclopedia. Previous article revision was really horrible. Pavlor (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@DovidBenAvraham: The TidBITS site is more of a blog. It has that look and feel about it. It is worth noting Dovid that the Retrospect article now looks like a Wikipedia page as opposed to a previous article which was a description section with a features list. The was a clear consensus to reduce the article, to copyedit and clean and then wikify it, which has now be completed and it is better for it. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I take the tenor of the replies to indicate tacit assent that TidBITS is not a blog in the reference-prohibited sense, even though scope_creep says it has "that look and feel about it." To reassure editors worried that TidBITS might just be repeating Retrospect "Inc." press releases, this 2010 article says that Adam Engst himself used to use Retrospect—which AFAIK is what Wikipedia wants in a second-party review of software.

The basic problem is that Retrospect has been since 2007 an enterprise client-server backup application, and IMHO you're not going to find many people with IT experience in such an application willing to devote their highly-paid time to write a review of it. Guy and scope_creep apparently work in IT; how about one or both of them writing a review of Backup Exec or NetBackup or Veeam—whichever they use professionally—mostly so that it can be used as a second-party ref in the appropriate WP article?

Retrospect is unique in that, because it started out 30 years ago as a personal backup application and its developers have chosen to continue to target such customers, it can be licensed for prices far lower than other enterprise client-server backup applications. If you actually read the Retrospect (software) article as of 19:11, 12 September 2019, you'll see that most of the space in the 3 features sections is devoted to features that aren't available in personal backup applications. Given the current ransomware attacks being endured by American non-profit organizations that need management-enforced enterprise client-server backup but can't afford expensive IT staffing, I think you'll agree that Wikipedia can survive one article with a tightly-written but "really horrible" single screen-page of detail about features such organizations need. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Well that's a remarkable bit of selective reading: you choose to interpret the replies in a way that gives you permission to reinsert the trivial crap back into the article. I have a better idea for you: take it to Wikibooks and leave this article as an actual encyclopaedia article, not a marketing piece. Guy (help!) 23:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• PragerU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:PragerU#Mark_Oppenheimer_Mother_Jones_article

I have a concern regarding this Mother Jones article[[11]] regarding it's summaries of some PragerU videos. My concern is the summaries are misleading or falsely present the arguments being made. These summaries are then being used in the Wikipedia PragerU article. The 5th paragraph of the MJ article includes several single sentence/phrase summaries of several PragerU videos. The specific videos in question are provided via links in the MJ article. The PragerU article cites the following sentence to this MJ article, "Still other videos argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap does not exist." This is an accurate summary of information from paragraph 5 but I do not believe the MJ summary is accurate/true to the contents of the videos. I will note that PragerU is considered a fringe source and thus it's claims are not considered reliable even if they align with more reliable sources.

From the Wikipedia text:

• "...argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong,"[[12]] This is a touchy subject and one I'm not as well versed in so I don't want this to be a touch point for this discussion. In watching the video I don't believe the commentator, Richard Lindzen says the consensus is false rather that the debate among climate scientist is about the extent. The main thrust of the video is to criticize those who the video says profit from raising the alarm. I do not know enough about this subject to question the arguments but I don't think it's correct to say the video argues that "scientific consensus on climate change is wrong".
• "...there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans," [[13]] I think this is a clear cut case of false summary. The video is talking about evidence against the view that African Americans are disproportionately shot by police. Basically it's only looking at a narrow subset of police-African American interactions and never claims that there aren't some police who are racist. Again even if the arguments are wrong the summary does not accurately reflect the content of the video.
• "...gender pay gap does not exist" [[14]] The video starts by acknowledging the aggregate gender pay gap but then goes on to argue that it's a myth that the gap is due simply to employers taking advantage of women to pay them less. It's argument that the the pay gap largely doesn't exist when considering like job, like skill set appears to be the core of the "gap doesn't exist" argument. This is an argument shared by others in mainstream sources. Again, even if the ultimate conclusion is wrong the summary should be accurate to the source.

My overall concern is that the MJ article is, in my read, falsely summarizing the arguments of others. Wikipedia is then citing those summaries as fact. My question for the group is, are these summaries accurate? Does this make this MJ article unreliable in general or more narrowly in terms of summarizing the arguments made in the videos? Note, this is not a question about if the videos make sound arguments or if the arguments should be considered fringe, only are the MJ's summaries true to the arguments being made by the videos. Springee (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Some of this seems pedantic to me. Based on the transcripts of the videos, they do argue that the gender pay gap is a myth. The title of the MacDonald video about police is literally titled "Are Police Racist", though it does focus only on police-involved shootings. I think the summary by MJ of the messages being given in these PragerU videos is correct. For the latter 2 bullet points, minor tweaks like "there is no discrimination in police shootings of African-Americans" and "...gender pay gap is a myth". Given that this is a fringe source being described by MJ, I think it would be incorrect to delve into semantics while ignoring the messages being communicated. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur with EvergreenFir. Mother Jones is a reliable secondary source and they're describing the views of a fringe source with a clear remit to mislead. some latitude can be extended over semantics in order to avoid WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mother Jones isn't a robustly reliable source. It is a very biased source with a strong left lean talking about the arguments made by a right leaning source. More to the point, just because MJ is generally reliable does not mean there summaries here are reliable. I understand the concern with including the videos. If they aren't sourcing information it begs the question why are they cited at all. However, PROFRINGE doesn't establish that MJ's has reliably described the PU source videos. To avoid PROFINGE and ABOUTSELF issues I would suggest removal of the specific MJ summaries. The questionable summaries could be removed. Here is the original, "Still other videos argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap does not exist." This would avoid the issue, "Still other videos discuss scientific consensus on climate change, police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap." By avoiding making claims as to the arguments in the PU videos the concern regarding false summaries is avoided without raising PROFRINGE/ABOUTSELF questions. That said, I also think the article in general should be questioned given the self serving/misleading nature of MJ's summaries. They have effectively setup strawman arguments as to what PU is claiming so they can easily knock them down. Do keep in mind that MJ was all but born out of making alarmist yet largely false claims (see their Ford Pinto coverage). Springee (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

MJ is a partisan source that describe another partisan source that have opposite POV I think its better not to use such source .Shrike (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a very accurate summary. Springee (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, Mother Jones, bias or not, is regarded as a generally reliable source. The same cannot be said for PragerU, which is both biased and unreliable. I agree with EvergreenFir that the argument against Mother Jones' descriptions is largely based on semantics, and is rather unconvincing. Furthermore, I think that the proposed change to "Still other videos discuss scientific consensus on climate change, police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap." is too euphemising. It's a bit like changing the Alex Jones page from saying he is known for "promotion of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories" to saying he "discussed the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". They don't just discuss these issues, they take a FRINGE position on them, and that is pointed out by reliable sources and should be represented in our article. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The question was posed on my talk page and reiterate what I said there. As the MJ article is clearly biased against PragerU, it is better simply to attribute the video descriptions to MJ in prose. MJ is reliable enough, but their descriptions of the videos do seem crude and is just better to say MJ as the source of the summary. --Masem (t) 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

For POV concerns, the proper approach is to compare MJ to other sources, rather than assume bias in this specific situation. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Two thoughts here... first, don’t use headlines as an indication of the content of a video or news media article/opinion piece. Headlines (even in the most reliable sources) are essentially click bait. Second, I have a problem with using opinion outlets to describe other opinion outlets. MJ is a reliable source for attributed statements about the opinions of MJ contributors, and Prager is a reliable source for the opinions of Prager contributors... but neither is reliable for the opinions of each other. I suppose one can say that “MJ’s opinion of Prager’s opinion is X” (attributing everything)... but that leads to question’s of DUE WEIGHT: is MJ’s opinion of Prager’s opinion really important enough to mention. Finally... this whole argument could be resolved by SUMMARIZING Prager’s videos (as a whole) instead of discussing them individually. If we don’t discuss individual Prager videos, then we don’t need to discuss individual reactions to them. Look for sources that critique/praise Prager as a whole... and discuss it in generalized terms. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• The summaries from MJ are inaccurate, and they should not be stated in wikivoice, but should at the very least be attributed. Ideally, we could include information from the summaries we find in other sources, possibly also with attribution. For example, compare this summary of the gender pay gap video from a conservative opinion piece at The Hill: The inconvenient truth behind the “pay gap” numbers is that, to the extent any real pay gap might exist between men and women, the factors that account for it seem to relate more to the choices that liberated, self-directed women are free to make in our country than they do to any sort of institutional discrimination. PragerU has produced a well-researched and concise video that makes this point extremely well. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm of the opinion that problems like this are definitely not just semantic-- misleading choice of words is critical in a general attempt to mislead. As I would not consider Mother Jones reliable for any claim, much less one about the journalistic integrity of a news outlet oriented on the opposite side of the political spectrum, I do not think it is an appropriate source in the PragerU article. As Blueboar suggested, a summary of praises and criticisms seems like the best approach here. Zortwort (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I see at least two glaring problems in the above arguments. First, the Mother Jones piece is not an opinion piece, it is an actual article from the Politics section of a source that is in fact considered generally reliable, so comparing it to actual opinion pieces (not RS) is false equivalency. Second, and this is a specific one, in response to Springee saying ""...there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans," [[15]] I think this is a clear cut case of false summary.", this is directly refuted by Larry Elder, a narrator for several PragerU videos, who writes in the Boston Herald "YouTube also restricted one I wrote and narrated, 'Is America Racist?' in which I refute the narrative that police engage in “institutional racism” against blacks."(emphasis added)(https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/08/26/conservative-voice-finds-insta-audience-reined-in/), which is exactly what the MJ summary says that PragerU says. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

AU, I think I understand your argument. I believe you are saying the PragerU video's claims are wrong. You may be correct. However, that isn't my concern here. A PragerU videos could say the moon is made of Swiss Cheese. If MJ then claimed Prager's moon video said the moon was a ball of liquid mercury that would still be a false summary. The critical point is that, right or wrong, the MJ summary was not true to the arguments made in the video. The police racism summary falsely suggests a topic scope that the actual content of the video doesn't cover. The Gender Pay Gap video actually admits there is a difference in aggregate but the critical focus is that claims that the gap are due to discrimination and bias by employers isn't supported. I think context is important here as politicians have been using the pay gap talking points to push for new regulations. As for the climate change one, well, my read is the video primarily says the problem is the actual scientific debate rather the way politicians, environmentalists and the media are using the debate for their own purposes. Again, the question isn't "is PragerU actually right?". The question is, "are PragerU's critics correctly summarizing the arguments made by PragerU?" Springee (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is not that they video's claims are wrong (they are, but that's not my point). My point is that you said that it was "a clear cut case of false summary" for Mother Jones to say that PragerU has videos claiming that "there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans", and yet a PragerU narrator says that "I wrote and narrated, 'Is America Racist?' in which I refute the narrative that police engage in “institutional racism” against blacks." So, how is that description inaccurate? If they say PragerU has a video in which they claim that police do not discriminate against blacks, and a PragerU narrator says that in a video "I refute the narrative that police engage in “institutional racism” against blacks.", how is that substantively different? How is that "a clear cut case of false summary"? Are you saying that you know better than the PragerU narrator what point he was trying to make with his video? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to demonstrate, Semprini! Now if an RS was to say "users of Wikipedia say Semprini!" that is accurate. If however it said "Wikipedia says "semprini!"" that is not. Now whether or not the police in the US are institutionally racists or not is not the issue. They need not be yet still have racist cops (without the issue of the US has more then one police force, some of which maybe, but the majority may not be).Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be wary of using a partisan source for analysis of another unless that analysis has been widely accepted by other RS. I would say this can be used with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a disagreement over this edit on the page for Guus Berkhout. The statement cites a factcheck from Climatefeedback.org, which is a fact-checking organization that brings in subject area experts to analyze claims about climate change. @Peter Gulutzan: has argued that the site is a self-published source, and can't be used for a statement about a BLP. Is this source acceptable for this purpose?

Previous discussion of the site Nblund ^talk 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Sciencefeedback.co (the parent site) is an accredited member of the Poynter Institute's fact checking network, they have clear editorial standards, and a good reputation for accuracy. I don't believe they meet the definition of a self-published source, because the scientists who write the analyses are separate from the editors. To my mind, they are similar to other fact checking organizations like Politifact, Snopes, Science-based medicine, all of which are recognized as generally reliable and not self-published. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Specifically reliable in this instance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Since my edit summary mentioned WP:BLPSPS the appropriate forum is WP:BLPN not WP:RSN, and opinions like "generally reliable" are irrelevant. The criterion is not that reviewers are separate from editors, but that they are under editorial control and being reviewed themselves. The context is that scientist group A wrote a letter, and scientist group B attacks the credentials of group A, and Wikipedia publishes group B's comment without even linking to group A's letter. So as well as WP:BLPSPS we have WP:BLPBALANCE and possibly WP:WELLKNOWN depending how well known Mr Berkhout is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• A group of mostly non-experts push fringe science. A legitimate fact-checking outlet which relies on recognized experts point out the fringe science pushed by the group. Apparently, in your mind, Wikipedia should not adhere to WP:FRINGE nor WP:NPOV, because pointing out fringe science is a violation of neutrality. It would be harmless silliness if so much time wasn't wasted on having to revert similarly motivated edits by you all over Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Peter Gulutzan I'm not sure I follow your argument: the reviewers are under editorial control from the editors/publishers. The reason for WP:BLPSPS is that even expert blogs have no external mechanism for ensuring accuracy. Nate Silver could have a couple of drinks one night and decide to tweet something libelous about Scott Rasmussen. There would be no way to stop him, because he's both the "publisher" and the "author" of his own Tweets. He wouldn't be able to do the same thing on Fivethirtyeight.com, though, because the creation of content and the publication of content are separate from one another at that site. Nblund ^talk 15:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Re scientists: there might be as many doctorates among the authors being attacked (certainly Berkhout+Lindzen+Nordin+Vahrenholt, maybe Rittaud+Prestininzi) as among the attackers. Re editorial control from the editors/publishers: Science Feedback's "about" page says "We invite scientists with relevant expertise to comment ... Science Feedback editors provide a clearly stated summary of the scientists’ comments" which is all, summarizing is not controlling. However, Nblund did the right thing by seeking consensus, and so far seems to have it, unless more editors disagree. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I get the impression that there is a large subset of Wikipedia users who, for some unfathomable reason, are not aware of the easily-understood fact that doctorates or other academic degrees are specific to one subject and do not enable an academic to speak any more sensibly on subjects outside their expertise than a non-academic would. And they don't even understand it after you explain it several times. Those users often support climate change deniers and use the reasoning that those climate change deniers have doctorates, neglecting to mention that those doctorates are mostly in completely irrelevant stuff. Case in point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. The fact check in question, 'Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science', is reliable in the context of this edit, which uses in-text atribution. It was authored by 6 different reviewers: 2 professors (including Timothy Osborn), an assistant professor, and 3 researchers/scientists. The fact check also underwent review from a named editor. Although Climate Feedback uses a contributor platform, it sets high requirements in its reviewer application process, including a "PhD in a relevant discipline" and "at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last three years in the field of climate science or climate change impacts". Climate Feedback publishes the methodologies the site uses to evaluate articles and claims. Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) accreditation is the gold standard for fact-checking websites, and Science Feedback (which operates Climate Feedback and Health Feedback) qualified for this accreditation in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

  WP:BLPSPS claims do fall under the purview of this noticeboard, as the determination of whether a source is self-published falls under both the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Considering the high requirements of the reviewer application process and the presence of a named editor in every fact check, I don't consider Climate Feedback a self-published source. As Nblund mentioned, Climate Feedback is comparable to Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry), which was determined not to be a self-published source in its January RfC. (All of my comments also apply to Health Feedback, which is very similar to Climate Feedback.) — Newslinger talk 04:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I found this person while doing some searching for RS when it comes to reviews: [16], [17]. It says that Brigid Alverson was a judge for the 2012 Eisner Awards among other things. Can info on her blogs be used for reviews or "best of" when it comes to manga? [18] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What else has she done?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

She has an MFA in printmaking, was interviewed by The Boston Globe [19], and did a piece on Publishers Weekly. [20] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure this is enough to pass as an expert who blog we should consider an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Would like to establish a consensus on whether India Times Entertainment Times sub-site, beautypageants.indiatimes.com is a reliable source for beauty pageants. An example usage is https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/Daegu-Lee-Ihanui-Uhuijun-to-represent-Korea-at-Miss-Earth-2019/eventshow/70190536.cms as one of 35 citations to this source at Miss Earth 2019. It carries this disclaimer at the bottom of the page: "ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising." -- Bri.public (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The contact information listed at [21] is "Miss India Organization" so I think this is pure native advertising. -- Bri.public (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Have listed at WP:WPSPAM, but would still appreciate another editor's confirmation that this is a bad source. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any differentiation between paid for pieces and independently written pieces, (such as a byline) the film reviews seem ok as a lot of them are bad reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

All I can tell you for sure is that https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/ lists exactly two contacts: Head Talent Monetization - Miss India Organization and Brand & Operations Head - Miss India Organization, so I suspect Miss India are responsible for everything under beautypageants.indiatimes.com. I did not see any film reviews here. I'm not sure about the rest of India Times "Entertainment Times"; is that where you saw a film review? -- Bri.public (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It also appears that India Times parent company The Times Group owns the name "Miss India". See Femina Miss India. The so-called "Miss India Organization" may be a subsidiary or simply IT employees. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There does seem to be COI and (in effect) SPS issues here. This should be treated like (in effect) a blog hosted by them.07:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I was mistaken about the film reviews, this beauty pageant section does seem to be non-independent so not useful for notability but perhaps ok for very basic facts imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this Guardian article 'Protecting rioters': China warns Apple over app that tracks Hong Kong police reliable as a source for this statement: It also criticised Apple for allowing "Glory to Hong Kong", an unofficial anthem frequently sung in the protests, to remain available on its music service.? I ask this because two separate IP editors have modified "Glory to Hong Kong"'s description on the HKmap.live article, despite the source describing the song as an unofficial anthem frequently sung by protesters during the ongoing anti-government movement. feminist (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Might need attribution, but The Guardian is about as RS as you can get in print new media.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any direct discussions on the website itself in RSN but it's cited as a source in Trump–Ukraine controversy#Whistleblower evidence rules as promoting a conspiracy theory and was directly linked from Donald Trump's twitter feed: Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge which the remainder of the section disputes. Aside from the appropriateness of being cited above (as Trump's promotion of their article prompted other reporting), I hate immediately dismissing any right-leaning publications as non-RS, but the wiki page The Federalist (website) has some other things that give me pause. Pending feedback, I'd possibly also add a line to the lede stating that the website has been known for promoting conspiracy theories.-Ich (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• It was co-founded by a man who had to leave the WaPo because he was caught plagiarizing [22], the question "Who funds The Federalist?" is a meme among journalists [23]... It's unreliable in a way that right-leaning publications don't in principle have to be. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• ^ agreed. There's no particular reason to cite the Federalist there, since other sources are already pointing to it as the original source for the claim. As for the broader question of reliability: I wouldn't use it as a source of fact for anything remotely controversial, and I suspect it would be WP:UNDUE for statements of opinion in most cases. Like a lot of sites on the right (Washington Examiner, Washington Times) they offer some occasional niche reporting, but they're abjectly terrible around anything remotely controversial. They're particularly bad on stuff related to LGBT rights: they regularly publish articles (example) that cite ACPeds, an anti-gay junk science group. Nblund ^talk 16:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• It is a RS for this purpose. A conspiracy theory is a theory until it's proven not to be, and we have been including conspiracy theories about Trump since he announced he became a candidate. When notable enough for inclusion, theories and speculation should be cited to the source using in-text attribution and not presented in WP voice, if they are to be included at all. Keep in mind, the allegation of Russia-Trump collusion was a conspiracy theory that has long since been debunked but we included almost all of the details of the conspiracy theory in the Trump-Russia dossier along with many other articles and his BLP. Were there any corrections in MSM? Have the conspiracy theories been removed from the WP articles? If we're going to eliminate conspiracy theories and speculation, let's not do it on a partisan basis or simply because we don't agree with them, and then try to discredit the source to keep it out of the pedia. The latter is getting too close to noncomplinace with NPOV. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing that the claim about the whistleblower rules should be removed all together. The question is whether we should cite The Federalist. We have other, more reputable, sources that have described and debunked the claim, so citing The Federalist seems pointless. If The Federalist is the only source available for a claim, it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion. Nblund ^talk 17:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the Federalist should be cited as the source for the original allegations. And I think it has received enough attention that it should be included. I would also recommend giving the pro-Federalist side its due. E.g., see this piece: [24]. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have explained why The Federalist's story is false and misleading. We absolutely don't need to give WP:FALSEBALANCE by pretending otherwise. There's also no reason to direct users to a demonstrably false news article when we have better sources readily available. Nblund ^talk 17:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It isn't false balance. RCP is a good site, and these authors seem to have relevant experience, and give voice to a substantial minority view on this matter. Their view deserves mention, with attribution and a note that they're conservative. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

One "COMMENTARY" piece written by two employees of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation does not hold a candle to the many reliable sources across the political spectrum (listed below) that describe the view as a conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 18:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That's one prominent example of a lot of pieces on conservative sites that make the argument that while the sources you've cited are correct that the law wasn't changed (something Sean Davis never claimed, by the way), the ICIG did change, in response to this complaint, internal policies concerning how they determine whether such a complaint is credible--a determination that the law left for the ICIG to make. I could go dig up a bunch of additional similar stories by conservatives, but I assume you're not interested. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 18:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, here goes: Sean Davis's own reply, this Fox News story says something similar, Red State also expresses the same view. There are more of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. After reviewing the ICIG press release alongside all of the articles mentioned in this discussion, I think the wording Wikipedia uses to describe The Federalist's allegations is a matter of due weight, and a discussion on the wording would be best handled with an RfC on Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy or the neutral point of view noticeboard. All sources agree that the ICIG replaced the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with a new form that contained different language, but some conservative publications claim that the form change was politically motivated (e.g. "raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint"). The accusation of political motivation is the item that most reliable sources have described as a "conspiracy theory".

Regardless of how editors eventually decide to phrase the description, I believe The Federalist's article "Intel Community Secretly Gutted Requirement Of First-Hand Whistleblower Knowledge" falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in the context of its role in Trump–Ukraine controversy § Whistleblower evidence rules, and can be cited with in-text attribution and appropriate analysis from reliable sources. Donald Trump's September 30 tweet is cited in the article under the same principle, despite Twitter (RSP entry) being a self-published source. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, you say that The accusation of political motivation is the item that most reliable sources have described as a conspiracy theory and you link the Snopes article. But the Snopes article finds fault, not with the claim that there was political motivation, but with the claim that there was any change to "the rules" at all. As they put their conclusion: "No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress." So they're interpreting Sean Davis as claiming that there had been a legal requirement that was changed by the ICIG. I.e., they think that Sean Davis and Trump are asserting that the ICIG changed the law and that this claim is a conspiracy theory. My vote would be to accurately state this line on the situation, which seems to be what we find in most major news reports on this. We may then briefly note the conservative reply: that the complaint is not that there was a change in the law, but that the ICIG changed their internal policy about how they would determine what counts as a credible complaint, and that they scrubbed their old policy off of the relevant forms in order to avoid the appearance of conflict with the way they handled the recent complaint about Trump. I don't see that RS actually address this response at all, at least so far. In fact, because of this, my own preference would be to wait a month or so before including anything on this story at all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The Snopes article directly referenced the deep state conspiracy theory in their description of The Federalist's claim: 'The claim originated on The Federalist website, which published a story on Sept. 27 that was not only inaccurate but played on the “deep state” conspiracy theory, an idea now popular among both fringe fanatics and White House officials alike. It posits that U.S. intelligence agencies are scheming against Trump.' I agree that Snopes does not use political motivation as the basis of their argument against The Federalist's article, but Snopes does claim that The Federalist's article contains a conspiracy theory that alleges political motivation.

Many of the other reliable sources are similar in that they describe the The Federalist's claims as a conspiracy theory, because the sources assert that the article's claims are false on technical grounds (i.e. the rules did not actually change) and that the article's claims allege political motivation. Example descriptions of political motivation allegations:

• CNN: "President Donald Trump tweeted a conspiracy theory suggesting the rules for whistleblowing had recently changed in order to accommodate the recent whistleblower complaint against him"
• USA Today: "Trump's allies have been repeatedly portraying a recent change in the whistleblower complaint form to allow second-hand information as a move by anti-Trump bureaucrats to permit the official accusation of presidential misconduct to move forward when it had no standing to begin with"
• Washington Examiner: "Republicans are now adopting the arguments of the DNC circa 2016, claiming that the whistleblower alleging damaging claims against President Trump's dealings with Ukraine is a corrupt actor who gamed a rigged rules change and that this conspiracy renders the actual contents of his complaint as illegitimate."

A false theory is only a conspiracy theory when it alleges a conspiracy. These sources claim that The Federalist's article contains a false theory that alleges a political conspiracy, which by definition would be a conspiracy theory. Most of the reliable sources mentioned in this discussion so far which use the conspiracy theory label correctly state that The Federalist's article alleged a change in the rules (some quoting Trump's September 30 tweet, which used the word "RULES") and not a change in the law, although most sources also reported that the law did not change. — Newslinger talk 05:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I still don't agree with you about what the conspiracy theory is supposed to be according to Snopes, but forget that. When the sources say the "rules" did not change, they mean the law didn't change. Thus, they think that Sean Davis alleged that the ICIG changed the law. I believe that should be made clear in our article. And it should be made clear that Sean Davis (and other conservatives) have responded that this was never what they meant. But perhaps we should not continue discussing this here. On the narrow question of whether the Federalist piece should be cited, I think you and I now agree that it should (or at least can) be cited. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we both agree that The Federalist can and possibly should be cited in this context, albeit on different grounds. How the article should describe the sources' use of the term conspiracy theory is outside this scope of this noticeboard, but I'm sure this will eventually be hashed out at Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy. — Newslinger talk 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Added "possibly" to allow for editorial discretion. — Newslinger talk 21:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Sean Davis alleged that the whistleblowing document requirements was changed. In fact, in May 2018, the whistleblowing document already stated that it was allowed for whistleblowing reports based on "Other employees have told me about events or records involved". and even Other source(s). [25]. By that measure, Davis' claim that the ICIG secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings is false. The firsthand knowledge requirement is for the ICIG to establish via their own investigation, not for the whistleblower to establish. starship.paint (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint my old friend, good to see you again. So you think that, because the form they altered had (and the new form still has) a box you can check to indicate that you got the information second hand, this shows that the ICIG always allowed second hand information as the basis for a finding of "credible" even though they explicitly said on the previous form (and in other policy documents) that they only found first-hand reports credible? Do I have your position right? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight - I'll let CNN explain it for me: [26] This does not mean that the inspector general would reject a complaint if it presented only secondhand knowledge, but that firsthand information would be needed for the complaint to be found credible and passed further up the chain of command. The inspector general has 14 days from the time the complaint is submitted to investigate and make a determination as to whether the urgent concern is credible. And that's exactly what happened in the case of this whistleblower. So, the ICIG's preliminary review involves the ICIG finding the firsthand information themselves. If you want a Republican source, here's Chuck Grassley, co-founder of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus: "Complaints based on second-hand information should not be rejected out of hand, but they do require additional leg work to get at the facts and evaluate the claim's credibility," the statement continues." starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Starship.paint, so the boxes don't have anything to do with it; glad for the clarification. Your idea in this last comment is that when the ICIG document said If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, the ICIG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA it did not mean that the person filing the complaint needed to provide first-hand information, but instead that the person filing the complaint could provide nothing more than second-hand ... assertions, which the ICIG would then investigate to see what they could dig up. But, obviously, that isn't what the statement of ICIG policy that I just quoted means. I guess your idea is that the statement on the form was in error, and that this was never their policy? Why would you think that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - of course I'm not the ICIG, but here is what I think. You shouldn't have cut out nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions the second time you quoted it. When the ICIG writes unsubstantiated, to me at least, it seems that they have to do their own investigation to determine if first-hand information is substantiated - of course you can't just accept claims as they are as credible. If so, why don't you think that they also have to do their own investigation to determine if second-hand information is substantiated? starship.paint (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think that their internal policy, as stated on the form, clearly indicated that the ICIG would deem a complaint non-credible if the assertions made were only second-hand, or (not and!) if the assertions were unable to be substantiated. Now the word 'or' here means that they would deem non-credible if either of these situations were the case. So, equivalently, in order for them to deem the complaint credible, the complaint would have to include first-hand assertions, and would also have to be substantiated (perhaps after some investigation by the ICIG). I mean, I'm just reading the policy they removed from the form. It seems like you're reading 'and' where they said 'or'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - we both agree at the end of the day, the ICIG needs to be in possession of firsthand substantiated information to determine credibility. For that to happen, it definitely needs to do its own investigation, even if it were provided with documents, to ensure that they are not faked. This being the age of deepfakes, even videos can be faked now. Since the ICIG always has to investigate with a preliminary review, it can obtain firsthand information itself, don’t you think? The whistleblower would have to give up their sources, or at least which department the sources work in. Then the relevant federal employees would be interviewed by the ICIG, in a bid to find firsthand substantiated info. starship.paint (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Sure, we agree that the ICIG needs first hand info, and that the ICIG needs to investigate. And of course I also agree that the ICIG can obtain first hand info in the course of that investigation. So that's what we agree about. Perhaps you will also agree that ICIG internal documents used to say that they required the whistleblower to provide first-hand information. And they changed those documents in response to concerns about how the press would talk about the present case. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I believe that the ICIG needs firsthand, substantiated information to accept a report as credible - but I believe that to determine this, the ICIG needed to conduct its own investigation to find substantiation instead of just rejecting all secondhand reports straightaway. Therefore, I believe that the last sentence of the removed paragraph was certainly misleading, and I believe that they removed that paragraph because it was misleading and did not follow the law - even though the whistleblower did use the old document. starship.paint (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Right, you're suggesting that the ICIG didn't change policy, that the ICIG always had the present policy, and that the removed statements were removed because they were just not accurate. Well, I don't know how you could know that. But at least you seem to be agreeing that their policy statement was altered in response to this case. Whether that reflects an alteration in underlying policy, or instead was a matter of correcting inaccurate policy statements, is impossible to say on the present evidence. But it sure is suspicious! In any case, I don't see that either policy "did not follow the law" since the law leaves it open to the ICIG to determine an internal policy about what will and what will not be deemed "credible". Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - certainly, I don't know anything, I'm not a legal expert. That's why I rely on reliable sources with access to these legal experts. Here we have NBC News: But the law hasn’t changed, and there is no requirement that whistleblowers stick to first-hand information in their complaints precisely because those filings are designed to trigger official investigations that would uncover such first-hand information, three attorneys who represent whistleblowers told NBC News. All these three experts were named: Eric Bachman, an attorney with Zuckerman Law who represents whistleblowers ... David Colapinto, an attorney with Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto who represents whistleblowers, and who is a co-founder of the National Whistleblower Center ... Bradley Moss, an attorney who specializes in representing whistleblowers, furthermore, a potential conflict was interest was stated in the case of Moss - Moss is a partner at Mark Zaid, P.C., the firm representing the Ukraine whistleblower, but he said he is completely "walled off" from the individual's representation - which further promotes the credibility of this piece when they take an action to possibly decrease the credibility of Moss. Naming the experts further increases credibility for any falsehoods are preserved in the public record and can be used against them. There's also circumstantial evidence from even later back, here we have a submitted whistleblower form to the ICIG in 2014 which at the start clearly states I am an appellant with direct or indirect evidence in the above-mentioned appeal to the External Review Board. starship.paint (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: This last reply of yours would make sense if I had asked "what source will take responsibility for the claim that the law wasn't changed?" But I didn't ask that. Nobody ever said the law was changed, and it's so mind-numbingly dumb that the whole media started frothing and the mouth and repeating over and over that the law wasn't changed as if anyone had claimed that it was changed. The law leaves it to the ICIG to determine what a credible complaint is. The ICIG then changed their policy statements on how they do that, in response to this case, because they were not going along with those statements. That's suspicious. And the fact that several lawyers say the law wasn't changed, and that the ICIG should investigate based on second-hand info, does not prove that the internal policy wasn't changed. That's the whole point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: The law leaves it to the ICIG to determine what a credible complaint is. ... and how would you know that, can you substantiate that? starship.paint (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: The law says "(A) Not later than the end of the 14-calendar-day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. Upon making such a determination, the Inspector General shall transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information." So the ICIG makes the determination whether the complaint is credible. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Well, okay. So I just read that [27] the ICIG stated that certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees. So there indeed was a change in the forms because the ICIG felt that the previous form was misleading. I will again point out that the submitted 2014 report to the ICIG backs that up when it states I am an appellant with direct or indirect evidence in the above-mentioned appeal to the External Review Board. starship.paint (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: First of all, I just totally won our little game of indent chicken. Second, that 2014 document is extremely weak evidence that is only tenuously related to the matter at hand. Finally, I think I know that (i) the ICIG is granted authority by the law to determine whether a complaint is credible, (ii) internal ICIG documents clearly stated that the ICIG policy was to find a complaint credible only if the whistleblower made first-hand claims, (iii) they changed these documents in response to this case by their own admission. I find that all to be extremely suspicious. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I'll get you next time on indent chicken. We will have to agree to disagree on the matter at hand. My own standpoint is that due to the mitigating evidence: the wording in the other parts of the 2018 form, as well as the 2014 form, as well as the lawyers' comments, as well as Grassley's comments (as a Republican, he has a vested interest in protecting the president, that he would break from that is noteworthy), that is enough circumstantial evidence that (ii) is not as clear-cut as it seems, and that the offending sentences may have been misleading, and were corrected. starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: It's not that you doubt (ii); rather, it's that you think it isn't suspicious because you're convinced by the other things you mention that the changed wording was just in error. Perhaps we can at least agree that it's not a conspiracy theory to believe (i) - (iii) and find the facts suspicious in this case. Perhaps we can also agree that the scores of "fact check" articles that make the point that the law didn't change are not being responsive to the concern. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - even if we believe (i) to (iii), there still could be a conspiracy theory. The Federalist story falsely reports that the 2018 form states any complaint must contain only first hand knowledge, all while failing to report that the 2018 form already had options to report secondhand evidence and other sources. The Federalist goes on to emphasise that the whistleblower’s complaint had lots of secondhand evidence, and it also argued that hearsay is not admissible in court. It may be a conspiracy theory to suggest that any secondhand evidence was never admissible, and that the ICIG changed the form to allow secondhand evidence specifically to target Trump (when indeed the 2018 form already had an option to report secondhand evidence). Anyway, the ICIG states that the whistleblower has some firsthand evidence. I read the complaint, the whistleblower stated he was not a witness to most - (not all!) of the events. starship.paint (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I agree that Sean Davis should not have said any complaint must contain only first hand knowledge. That is not a correct description of what he had found out. Failing to express the situation well, though, when the underlying facts are worthy of reporting and are highly suspicious, does not amount to a conspiracy theory in my view. I think that while the statement you quote from Davis was somewhat incompetent, you should still be able to see that the guy had a point, which I have expressed correctly. As for firsthand evidence from the whistleblower, it's entirely mysterious that the ICIG responds to this whole thing in part by claiming that the whistleblower did actually have first-hand evidence. Nobody seems to know what the first-hand evidence from the whistleblower was supposed to be, and, to my knowledge, the press has never asked or shown any interest! Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - Davis had a point. The thing is, he used that point to spin into unchartered waters that all “hearsay” should be rejected. He has been corrected by numerous media that the 2018 form had options for secondhand evidence. Yet he never corrected his original story (his omission was either bad faith or sheer carelessness, and a lack of correction is either bad faith or sheer ignorance). This makes the Federalist unreliable. As for the whistleblower’s first hand evidence, there is a redacted section in the complaint. Maybe it is there. Or, maybe, what counts is that the whistleblower read the original transcript of the call. It’s in the complaint that the whistleblower said he did that. Anyway, key allegations in the complaint were already confirmed by the White House (investigate Biden, investigate Crowdstrike, talk to Barr + Rudy, store transcript in very classified location). Of course the focus should be investigating the allegations rather than attacking the whistleblower and the process. starship.paint (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think we're now in agreement for the most part. I'd add that the point itself, though badly expressed, is not a conspiracy theory, and the media "factchecks" have largely been really dumb. It's depressing. I think we'd serve readers to make the actual point he was making rather than pretending that he had no point. Unfortunately, the only sources that do this are right leaning and will probably not be allowed, even with attribution. Such is the situation at Wikipedia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - again, I will reiterate, when points get expanded upon, they can turn into conspiracy theories. Here's what we know. (A) The ICIG removed a paragraph from the 2018 form entitled "First hand information required". This is not a conspiracy theory - it happened. (B) Federalist: only first hand information allowed. This is false. (C) Trump: WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: But just days before the Ukraine whistleblower came forward, the IC secretly removed that requirement from the complaint form." Conspiracy theory - the whistleblower used the old form. Perhaps the ICIG indeed changed the form to save themselves from criticism from an error from a previous ICIG, but the accusations are effectively insinuating that they changed the form to target Trump. starship.paint (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I'm not denying that. (I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not denying it either.) I'm claiming that the actual point--not the misrepresentations or misstatements or expansions of it--is not a conspiracy theory. That's all. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I would conclude that one of the key points raised by the Federalist was not a conspiracy theory. However, when I consider the article as a whole (it does have other points, not just one), it gets more questionable, and in my view it implied a conspiracy theory which others did understand. starship.paint (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ok, I'm not going to disagree because my main point is that, even though one of the key points raised by the Federalist was not a conspiracy theory, this key point will never be allowed in any article on Wikipedia, even attributed, nor will any non-conservative news outlet concede that there was a key point. Instead, those who control these outlets will froth at the mouth and say that you need an act of congress to change the law. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - using this source [28] - I can report that the forms were changed, with a section containing the sentence If you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than secondhand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA." was removed. starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Great, give it a try and we'll see if it's reverted. The current version also construes Davis as having falsely claimed that the law itself contained the requirement. He never claimed that, of course. So I wish that were changed too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Since the text in Trump–Ukraine controversy § Whistleblower evidence rules is crystal clear that the article in The Federalist is a conspiracy theory, and the article itself is the subject under discussion, the article can be cited as a primary source if it is supplemented by reliable secondary sources that cover the article's role in the conspiracy theory. Although The Federalist can be cited as a primary source, it doesn't have to be, and that decision is largely made on editorial discretion. The key question is whether citing The Federalist would help readers understand the conspiracy theory in the context of the Trump–Ukraine controversy. — Newslinger talk 17:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there any RS that call it a "conspiracy theory"? I'm not aware of any. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, on second look, there is exactly one source that calls it a conspiracy theory: partisan source The Daily Beast. CNN, WaPo, and Guardian do not call it that. Thus, in following the major RS, we should not call it that without attribution to DB, since it's an opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Snopes, CNN, NBCnews Nblund ^talk 18:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Other sources that use the term conspiracy theory to describe the matter include The Independent (RSP entry), Vox (RSP entry), USA Today, and even the conservative Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 18:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Was the Trump-Russia collusion allegation said to be a conspiracy theory in any of our articles? The word "conspiracy" is laced throughout Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). The NYTimes used "conspiracy". Shall we maintain consistency here? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" as it is commonly used has a specific meaning. The phrase you want to use when discussing things like Trump-Russia or Clinton-Email is something like "allegations of a conspiracy" "X claimed that Y conspired" "convicted of engaging in a conspiracy". etc., depending on what is in the sources. "Conspiracy theory" should be reserved for things like "Big Pharma is covering up THE TRUTH about vaccines" or "The DNC is running a pedophile ring out of a pizza parlor". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends on whether there are enough reliable sources that use the term conspiracy theory to describe the collusion allegations. As Guy Macon said, there's a distinction in connotation between the highly negative term conspiracy theory and less negative phrases (such as allegations of conspiracy). Since the conspiracy theory label is an exceptional claim, we would need multiple high-quality reliable sources that use the exact term conspiracy theory to support its use in any Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 18:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• The following is a general comment on this topic, and is NOT to be construed as disagreement with or criticism of any particular individual.

We all have biases, conscious and unconscious. Some of us are, for what we consider good reason, Rooting For Team Blue or Rooting For Team Red in the ongoing dumpster fire that is US politics.

If you look inside yourself and see that you are indeed Rooting For Team Red or Blue, you are likely to have an unconscious bias causing you to not recognize conspiracy theories that attack the other team and to be especially sensitive to conspiracy theories that attack your team. You may even have convinced yourself that only the other team has a problem with conspiracy theories or fake news. Please make you best effort to avoid any hint of unconscious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Some months back there was a discussion of whether to call Spygate a conspiracy theory. It turns out that it is called a conspiracy theory in two cherry-picked news sources: one piece in the LA Times and one in Haaretz. Every single other major news organization refrained from calling it that (unless in opinion pieces). When challenged to make our article reflect the minimal weight that RS news reports gave to 'conspiracy theory', the reply was that a conspiracy theory is just a theory about a conspiracy, and consensus was unmovable on this. Since it was uncontroversial that Trump's Spygate theory alleges a conspiracy, it was deemed a conspiracy theory. But of course when we turn to an article where it goes for red and against blue to use 'conspiracy theory', we suddenly get real strict about what it means, and it can only refer to things like alien abductions and black helicopters and so on. So yeah, let's be less partisan in our use of the term, I agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It should never be cited as a reliable source, especially after their recent debacle. It should be cited only to show what they've asserted, solely for the purpose of debunking the endless conspiracy theories in which they participate in trafficking. soibangla (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

And such mention of The Federalist can be done without using them as our source, but by quoting RS which mention them. ALL content must be sourced to RS, including falsehoods, allegations, and conspiracy theories. We do not use the original, unreliable, source. Readers can use the RS to then find the unreliable source, if they are so inclined. Our determination of due weight is always determined by the mentions in RS. If some weirdness isn't mentioned in RS, then we don't mention it at all. It has zero weight, regardless of how widespread it is in unreliable sources. For example, Fox News can mention nonsense all the time, as it is wont to do, and that doesn't give it any weight for our purposes, only in the minds of believers who use unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable, probably on par with the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). Does not pretend to be politically neutral. More of a source for opinion than for reportage. feminist (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC on the use of the term "conspiracy theory" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC WITHDRAWN. starship.paint (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if it is possible to use the newsweek article for verifying the following material? "American government sources told Newsweek in 2005 that the Pentagon is planning to utilize MEK members as informants or give them training as spies for use against Tehran. Tanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ish, not sure it says quite that. But its a close approximation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

On the Jimmy Dore page, there are attempts to insert comments made by this far-left conspiracy theorist in a podcast interview, with editors arguing that this podcast constitutes a reliable source. Is it a RS? And should Wikipedia allow editors to randomly pluck comments made in hour-long interviews? It seems to clearly fail RS and DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why (as an interview) it is not usable as a source for his opinions. In fact this [[29]] seems to put it firmly in the news blog category. It does not even seem to have the usual "these are not the views..." type disclaimer, Rolling Stone are owning it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So long as there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the statements then it would be a reliable source for a comment made by Dore. That doesn't imply WEIGHT and using comments out of context or giving them more weight/significance than they had in context should be avoided. Springee (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Far left"?? He's fairly neutral as he calls out A LOT of faults with both sides, infact a lot more faults with the Democratic party than he does with the GOP TBH? He's always on about Russiagate being a hoax, the impeachment being a distraction/waste of time, how the Mueller Report couldn't even show how the DNC servers were hacked and that they paid Crowdstrike to come up with a conclusion they agreed to, and yet you think they're "far left"? Very strange indeed... Apeholder (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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

We have a large number of links to Leigh Rayment's pages - in the thousands - and even a template, {{Rayment}}. I have some concerns.

• The site has obvioualy been hit by a keyword stuffing hijack, Google his name.
• The biography shows no evidence of reliability.
• Many of the links appear to be functionally useless, e.g. to /baronetage from dozens of articles on baronetcies - isn't a source for text on the article as it claims (e.g. Albert Spicer) and doesn'#t appear to be that useful.
• Much of his content cites no sources. When he does, it's to things like The Newgate Calendar, a rather lurid populist book which would definitely have been prone to embellishment, especially in its days as a penny dreadful.

The template was created by Kittybrewster, a valued and delightful man who nonetheless has a history of adding articles of questionable significance. A few citations to an L. Rayment exist in the literature, but this is Louise, not Leigh, and they are English, whereas the bio says he's Australian. Many of the links were added by Tryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has left the building so I can't inquire further.

On balance, I think this template should be deleted and the links nuked as a self-published source. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Zero input, I have no further info from off-wiki, I will start tagging as {{sps}} if nobody objects? Guy (help!) 17:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been removing Rayment sources for years now. I thought it was already determined to be unreliable and SPS. Don't know where I got that idea from but I do agree with it being so! - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Valuable corroboration, thanks Sitush. Guy (help!) 20:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Jim Saleam is a well known Australian neo-Nazi, a holocaust denier and a criminal - convicted of involvement in racist hate crimes (including attempted murder) also convicted of fraud.

On release from prison, for an attempted racially motivated murder, Saleam attained a PHD. His PHD thesis was being used as a citation for analysis of the 1930's proto fascist movement, the New Guard. To my knowledge no one ever reviewed or republished Saleam's thesis, it never went anywhere, it's been ignored by the broader academic community. He is not notable for anything other than fraud, neo-Nazism and attempted murder.

I do not believe this is a reliable source by any measure. What do other editors think of this source? Bacondrum (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If the thesis was reviewed by qualified experts and the doctorate was awarded by a legitimate university that followed its normal policies and processes then the document is almost certainly a reliable source. What the author has done otherwise isn't relevant. However, if no one else has ever cited the document then it probably doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article on the grounds of due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I see his thesis is used for this edit: [85]. So... work of a far-right extremist used to "balance" the article about a far-right organisation of the 1930s. Joke of the day? In any case, he is not a renowned (and respected) expert in this field of study, his opinion is certainly undue. Pavlor (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I believe it has due weight. Please see the concerning article's talk page under "Jim Saleam's PhD" for my argument. AwakenedWorld (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious Saleam is object of study for historians you mentioned, not renowned expert for 1930s Australian politics. His personal history aside, he is only some no name graduate with PhD (thousands of these in the world...), there is really no reason to have his opinion in the article. His thesis may be useable for uncontroversial facts, but certainly not for the edit, you tried to push through. Pavlor (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

To compare him to the swathes of PhDs in the world, and hence to invalidate his opinion in the article, would be to ignore his heavy role in the Australian far-right scene since the 80s. He's not a no-name by any stretch of the imagination, being someone with so much experience. AwakenedWorld (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He has next to no scholarly renown. As you wrote himself, his only notability is based on his political activity - and even here he is only a marginal voice (1.2 % best electoral result...). Once he becomes accepted as a scholar (or successful as a politician), his opinion may have some weight. Until then, he is certainly not the source we are looking for. Pavlor (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He clearly has been accepted as a scholar, as evidenced by his citations. Given that it's the responsibility of editors to uphold WP:NPOV, I would be happy if another source representing a similar minority view is added. This would settle the dispute and achieve the same utility as Saleam's dissertation, hopefully without further hiccups. However insofar as that minority view is not represented, I argue strongly in favour of due weight for Saleam. AwakenedWorld (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I fear your understanding of NPOV and due weight is not compatible with policies you cite. If you want to add this POV to the article, simply find better source. Pavlor (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Red flags aside, this thesis does not appear to have had any significant scholarly impact. Almost every time it is cited in academic literature, the author is actually writing about Saleam himself, not referring to his research. I think it can be safely discarded. It's entirely reasonable to consider modern neo-nazi perspective in a legacy section of an article on a much older far right group, but that can be done from the point of view of authors who are not neo-nazis. There are even a couple of historians who mention Saleam's opinions in this respect. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed? I think combining those historians' opinions with Ivar the Boneful's solution could work. AwakenedWorld (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's had about as much scholarly impact as your typical PhD thesis on a niche historical topic. I don't think you're correct about how his thesis has been cited. Google Books and Google Scholar both turn up several instances of his thesis being cited and his arguments mentioned or discussed by other historians of the far-right. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The University of Sydney doesn't hand out PhD's willy-nilly. Many works about the histories of obscure/extremist political movements are written by those involved in the movement or sympathisers, it doesn't mean they're not necessarily scholarly. I don't see a particular reason to reject this source across Wikipedia, and I see it is already cited on half a dozen other Wikipedia articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search="the+other+radicalism". His political affiliation could be noted more clearly. Possibly having a whole paragraph in the article lends undue weight to Saleam's views and it could be condensed into a couple sentences. Have any other scholars responded to his argument? If so that could be a way of balancing his views. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think that would be most appropriate. AwakenedWorld (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• We don´t reject (well at least some of us) this source as unreliable, we reject its particular use in the article as undue. As Someguy1221 wrote above, extremist POV can be covered by works of more mainstream historians. Pavlor (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

In that case, would its pairing with other sources of the same minority view be suitable in your opinion? AwakenedWorld (talk)

I mean use one high quality source to present this POV. If some good source mentions Saleam´s opinion, then this may be useable - with proper attribution. Pavlor (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Bacondrum's opinion before proceeding with a draft. I'd prefer to have some consensus here. AwakenedWorld (talk)

I'd accept one high quality source to present this POV or a source that mentions Saleam´s opinion - with proper attribution. But, if the section is merely about Saleam's view of things then it is undue. Bacondrum (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll prepare something in a few days. I invite you both to keep a watchful eye on the page, and please interject with your own improvements if necessary. AwakenedWorld (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry if I got my hackles up. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from in objecting to the use of this vile and hateful man as a source. Bacondrum (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can understand. AwakenedWorld (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It meets rs per Scholarship. But all that means is that the facts presented in the thesis can be considered reliable. That does not mean that any of the opinions expressed in the article should be included. That is determined by Due and undue weight: "each article [should] fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If reliable sources have ignored these opinions, then they fail weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. It is a PhD, that's the beginning and the end of what can be said for this offered source. It's not notable and is ridiculously UNDUE for the purpose of "balancing" the article. And I'll mention that "activist", as AwakenedWorld wishes to designate Saleam in the New Guard article, is also ridiculous. If Saleam ends up being mentioned in the article, which I'm strongly against, I suggest using our article Jim Saleam to indicate what Saleam is actually notable for: "Australian far-right extremist Jim Saleam", or "convicted criminal and neo-Nazi Jim Saleam". I blinked in disbelief when I saw AwakenedWorld's argument on Talk:New Guard that talking about Saleam's "purported" [sic] Neo-Nazism (AwakenedWorld considers Neo-Nazism "a vague phrase") constitutes "an an attempt to poison the well".[86] What? No, not at all. Also, as long as we're on the subject of New Guard, why have we been allowing elaborate self-promotion in the article, by quoting their program at length? What is all this about loyalty to the throne, uniting all loyal citizens, maintaining the full liberty of the individual, etc, etc? We don't do that for any political organisations, or indeed any organisations, because then they would all appear wonderful. Compare Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements. I've removed the section, with an explanation on talk. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC).

UK progressive online only news sites such as The Canary, Evolve Politics and Skwawkbox have been described by the BBC as making a huge impact and earning a massive following."^[1] They are all subject to a state approved regulator, IMPRESS and receive a positive rating from NewsGuard.

• Evolve Politics
• The Canary
• Skwawkbox

They are relevant across a range of articles relating to British current affairs.

Using these sources in Wikipedia articles aids in NPOV as they present a progressive viewpoint and content often absent from the mainly conservative mainstream media, which is owned and directed by commercial companies. Even the non commercial Guardian is not a consistent supporter of the current Labour Party, which is the offical political opposition in Parliament. While this is a subjective view on my part, it may be that these sites were originally more sensationalist to establish themselves and over time have become more reliable. However, some editors still regularly delete content from these sites, on the basis that they are fringe. Can we have a consensus that they are sufficently reliable as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to be used? Jontel (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Even as I may like them, I have a certain trepidation about a blanket declaration that they're solid RSes for all purposes in Wikipedia. With-attribution, as the partisan sources they are maybe. But I'd like some evidence of actual reliability as sources. And being signed up to IMPRESS doesn't really mean much - "No national newspaper has signed up to the new regulator" - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You say "some editors still regularly delete content from these sites". Why not identify these editors and the article talk pages where you have tried to discuss with them? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to echo Peter’s comment. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another... so we would need to see HOW these sources are being used (what they are being cited FOR) before we can say whether they are reliable or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm highly skeptical of The Skwawkbox, as it is a blog operated by a single person (Steve Walker, who is not any of the people listed on the Stephen Walker disambiguation page). That classifies it as a self-published source. Evolve Politics lists two people in its about page, Tom D. Rogers, and Jessica A. Miller, which is still in self-published territory. The Canary has the largest team of the three, with several dozen people listed on its team page, and I would not consider it self-published, although I have not yet examined the site's content or reputation. — Newslinger talk 15:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I would say that these sites are typically useful as a source for quotes and statements by progressive politicians and activists to whom the sites are sympathetic, meaning that the sites will likely be reliable for this, when attributed, when these quotes and statements are not covered elsewhere. There is no need to use them for the facts of significant events, as that is available from more mainstream sources. Nor would their opinions carry much weight. They have small staffs, but that is not such a handicap for online publications. I would invite the views of Icewhiz, Bondegezou, Bellowhead678, RevertBob Slatersteven and Bangalamania without making specific assertions. Also, G-13114 Here are two discussions: Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_3#The_Canary and Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party/Archive_7#RfC.4_IJV/JSG/JVP_/_Oryszczuk Regarding providing evidence of accuracy as requested by David Gerard, what would that be? On NewsGuard standards, they rate The Canary 8/9, Evolve 8/9 and Skwawkbox 9/9. On Impress complaints unheld in whole or in part over three years, The Canary has two, Evolve one and Skawkbox five. A 2019 survey by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that The Canary was trusted by its readers more than publications such as Buzzfeed News, the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, HuffPost, The Independent, Sun and regional press, and almost equal to the Daily Telegraph.^[1]Jontel (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Meh... “trusted by readers” may be another way of saying “bias confirmation”. I would be more interested in what critics say. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Critics are typically political opponents or competitors and usually both, so plenty of motivation for bias. However: [Press Gazette] [Buzzfeed][News Stateman] This critiques MSM coverage of UK Labour Party, so making a case for additional sources. [Media Reform] Jontel (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Jontel's comment that they are acceptable sources for left-wing politicians' comments on issues, but not much else. However, even in this context we still should be wary. Just because a comment is true, doesn't mean it should be included, and I am not convinced that being covered in the Canary is enough to warrant inclusion of comments into articles not about the politician in question. Bellowhead678 (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar:I am curious as to these comment of yours."I have to echo Peter’s comment. Reliability always depends on context. The same source can be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another.". How can a source be reliable and not reliable? How about the New York Times or Washington Post? Can they be reliable in one context and not reliable in another context? What then is the criteria upon which reliability is judged?Oldperson (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, for example, a tweet from Donald Trump that says X is an idiot, is an RS that DT tweeted that, but not an RS that X is an idiot. WaPo and NYT are great for lots of stuff, but when you get into the area of WP:MEDRS the desired bar is often higher. This [87] is WaPO. It's still only RS for the authors opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Nooooo, not hardly. These are no better than the likes of the Daily Caller. Popular <> accurate or trustworthy. Remember: millions of people trust te Daily Mail. The ususal rule applies: if a better source exists, us it, if it doesn't, it's probably bollocks, or at least its significance is exaggerated. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• These are entirely the opposite of "reliable sources" - they are deliberately highly partisan, often loose with facts, sometimes engaging it outright fantasy... The Land (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• They are not remotely reliable. They are highly partisan. (Yes, in very limited circumstances, they might be reliable for certain quotations, but, generally, no.) Look at The Canary: here's a current article, entitled "The BBC’s pro-Johnson propaganda is so absurd even a former Tory deputy PM has had enough". We consider the BBC RS. If we accept The Canary's view, the BBC is not RS, it delivers "pro-Johnson propaganda". We can't have an RS list including both! Now read the actual article: it misrepresents what Heseltine says to fit an agenda. Read The Skwawkbox, it's just non-stop pro-Corbyn spin. Bondegezou (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• I have to agree with what has been said above. Appropriate perhaps for quotations or the personal views of RS figures in limited circumstances, but that's about it. These websites have been criticised for clickbait and fake news from across the political spectrum, not just political opponents. The Skwawkbox's page notes that it has been used by Corbyn insiders to get its messages across, so there may be the occasional instance where it's relevant, but I'm not 100% sure on that one. Whatever the consensus view is on these sites, I do think they warrant a listing at the perennial sources page. --Bangalamania (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for news. These serve the same niche in the eco system as Guido Fawkes (website) - just from the Left. The have all sorts of interesting leaks, intentional leaks, and breaking news - however the more noteworthy stuff gets picked up by mainline sources a few hours later (e.g. Guardian, Telegraph, BBC, etc.). In some cases they might have a notable opinion piece - and they are probably OK for that - but in most case they are WP:UNDUE (if you can't get it published somewhere else....) - it might be DUE in a more obscure article of ours if there is someone senior behind the op-ed. (they also have some very far-out news and oped pieces). In this academic book - Skwawkbox and The Canary are described as "dubious sites". In this academic book The Canary and Evolve Politics are described as producing "tabloid style hit-pieces". All these outlets -are part of a network of similar sites supportive of the Corbyn wing in Labour - [88]. In this academic book and this one they are described as alt-left (for Americans reading this - in the US the alt-left isn't much of a thing - a myth even. In UK politics - things are flipped around - including Russian support (traditionally, and continuing today, to leftward elements in Labour) - much of what has been going on in the alt-right stateside, has been alt-left in the UK (of course - the UK has its own fascists - hard right - but they are enjoying (thankfully!) less popular support in the recent past). Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A "Marxist critique"! Any port in a storm? A book written by two academics and published by a specialist in academic literature, certainly. It would be nice, though, if equal enthusiasm was shown for work produced by academics under the imprimatur of universities ([89][90]) who don't share the viewpoint of Bolton and Pitts.[91][92][93] Note the bit in Political Communication in Britain just above where you linked to where it says:"A study conducted by LSE confirmed what many on the political left had suspected, finding coverage concerning Corbyn was disproportionately negative, and, while acknowledging the democratic importance of media scrutiny, deemed the print media to have regularly strayed beyond its purview as 'watchdog' to an 'attackdog' position."     ←   ZScarpia   19:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable There is a difference between bias and propaganda.This a propaganda sites with fake news as shown in this thread --Shrike (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• These sites are OK as far as they go, left POV and I would say exactly the same if they were right POV. The mainstream news is politicized right and left, so a little bit more right and left isn't going to make that much of a difference. They are kind of like a web based Fox News for the left, I don't regard them as propaganda, just ideologically driven. I would say use with caution.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not generally reliable, and in particular The Canary is problematic - Private Eye has highlighted numerous issues relating to it over the last couple of years. Please note that being a member of IMPRESS means little. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this whole RFC - we are supposed to assess three sources for reliability, regardless of what they are relied on for. Context matters and you haven't given us anything except "these sources are left wing and I think we should allow left wing sources". Answering this is inevitably going to involve a lot of "I like this"/"I don't like this" (for the record , I don't like these sources and don't think them particularly reliable) which renders the RFC pointless. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• I am quite familiar with the Skwawkbox and the Canary. The Skwawkbox is a valuable resource for information on the inner workings of the Labour Party. It does support Corbyn and is generally critical of what is calls the centrists and Blairites. It also publishes examples of state and corporate media bias against Corbyn. The Canary provides a useful perspective on current events. I have not seen any problems with the reliability of either outlet and would use both the Skwawkbox and the Canary as sources of information with attribution. I have not read Evolve enough to comment. Burrobert (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt that we would have considered Militant to be a reliable news source three decades ago when the Militant Tendency was doiong what it did and the activities of the present Momentum group, which these websites generally promote, is claimed to bear many similarities, in particular in terms of machinations for take-over of constituency parties and indeed the central party administrative and policy mechanisms. They're propaganda organs posing as news sources. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable - Based on arguments presented above. From what I've read and seen, these sources may be skewing facts to confirm their worldview. Red flag for a source - it may suggest the source is propaganda or publishes information for some ulterior agenda. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• All three are generally unreliable; I think Icewhiz hits the nail on the head when they describe them as "the Guido Fawkes of the Left". I'd even go so far as to deprecate the Skwawkbox (as well as Guido, FWIW): their assertion earlier this year that February has over 2,000 days shows that journalistic integrity is on a different planet to them. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• The Canary - Reliable:

The Canary says about itself:

"We remain completely independent of any advertisers, funders, companies, political organisations, or political parties."

"Today, a handful of powerful moguls controls our mainstream media. As such, its coverage is largely conservative. But we have created a truly independent and viable alternative."

"In April 2019, The Canary became one of the first UK media outlets to be awarded a green trust mark for news credibility and transparency from monitoring and rating site Newsguard."

"Media Bias / Fact Check has also reviewed our website. It states that, “we rate The Canary Left biased based on story selection that typically favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.”"

"As well as our Editor-in-Chief and Editors, Ed Sykes, our Sub Editor, maintains our high editorial standards with the help of three Copy Editors. Each article goes through a rigorous five gate process to check for accuracy."

"Unlike the mainstream press, which regulates itself, we are regulated by IMPRESS, the only independent press regulator in the UK. IMPRESS is the only regulator to be recognised by the UK government’s Press Recognition Panel. We adhere to the high journalistic standards set out in the IMPRESS Standards Code and are held to account if we ever fail to do so."

"We also have our own Code of Practice, which lays out the standards and ethical principles that guide our writers and editors whenever we make journalistic decisions."

"If you spot an error in any of our articles or you think we may have broken the standards set out in the code please see our corrections and complaints policy for information about how to contact us, the complaints process and how we publish corrections."

{more to follow}     ←   ZScarpia   16:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Source: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/michael-mann-v-timothy-tim-ball-the-frontier-centre-for-public-policy-inc-and-john-doe/

Article: Tim Ball

Content:

On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball,

on grounds of delay

.

Rakeroot (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, my quesiton is: Is the source reliable for to the grounds of dismissal?

I don't find this information anywhere else. Rakeroot (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The insertion was here by Dave souza. The climatecasechart page says that is "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer" without pointing to what media and what statements, so could be depending on blogs and tweets (that's all I've seen about this detail so far). Poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Am inclined to agree that this source only presents hearsay in its statement that "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay." On that basis, this isn't a reliable secondary source for the court's dismissal of the case. . . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I argue that, the fact that the case is dismissed is not disputed so the source could be used for this. Rakeroot (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• You know, I would say that site is RS for factual claims. It does not seem to editorialise, it is backed by a reputable and identified group of people, it comes under the auspices of Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and it backs everything with citations to original material. So as a source of for a summary of the legal outcome of a case or filing, it is appropriate. Wikipedia doesn't apply the hearsay rule, because we're not a court. Guy (help!) 12:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

He Did Not Fear: Xusro Parviz, King of Kings of the Sasanian Empire [94]

Not too sure about this one - it's first time I've seen this author. He seems to be relatively new in the academic world and quite young. The publisher is Gorgias Press. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The book meets rs. What that means is that we can assume the book is factual. An academic publisher has had other academics read it and chosen to publish it. That doesn't mean that the opinions or conclusions expressed in the book are necessarily significant, although they should be well-reasoned. TFD (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Can the website of the organization bestowing a literary award be used as a source for who received that award, and who was on the jury awarding it? Specifically asking for recipients of the Raja Rao Award formerly given by Samvad India Foundation (http://www.samvadindia.net). Thanks. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Yes, provided the site is not user-generated but it does not prove notability of the award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Atlantic306, many thanks. I do have other sources for the notability. Website has a page for each award recipient with a very thorough biography, for example this biography of Yasmine Gooneratne. Want to be sure this is usable as one of the sources for these, though not as a sole source. Thanks again! Hyperbolick (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I was wondering if this source here would be considered reliable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? I would be using it for theLittle Eva: The Flower of the South article, and I would be specifically citing this sentence: "The creepiest, easily, is Little Eva, Flower of the South, an 1853 children’s book in which the title character is saved from drowning by Sam, a slave.".

The site is self-published through WordPress, but according to the about page here, Mark Athitakis has been published in both The New York Times and Washington Post. I know self-published blogs are generally not considered reliable, but I was wondering if this individual's other publications would his blog suitable for Wikipedia. I thinking more on the negative side, but I would like to get some feedback/input. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

In the article Jumbo Lake, it is asserted that

Lac Jumbo was officially named on 3 October 1972.

sourced to Lac Jumbo, Commission de toponymie de Quebec, retrieved 2019-09-01

The Commission de toponymie source shows a "date d'officialisation" which is presumably reliable for assertion that this lake was listed in their database of names on that date in 1972. However is it reliable for assertion that the lake was first officially named on that date? (Q1)

And, if experts here could please venture into notability as well, does it seem appropriate to include such a statement into every article about towns, cities, natural features in Canada? (Q2a) Or should the Commission de toponymie's date be mentionable only when the act of naming is shown to be notable in a different source, such as for a renaming of street to honor a fallen firefighter or whatever, when the source is commenting about the naming date specifically? (Q2b)

• Comment. (Adapted from discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumbo Lake.) I believe that the statement is possibly completely false, if it is meant to establish the first official recognition of "Jumbo Lake" or "Lac Jumbo" for this lake. I believe that mentioning it at all is giving outrageous salience to a non-notable bureaucratic action, and is trivial beyond a degree acceptable to mentioned in an encyclopedia. It is true that The Commission de Toponymie source about Lac Jumbo does include "Date d'officialisation: 1972-10-03". But I do not believe at all that the lake was named in 1972. I think that was when the Toponymie commission added an entry into their database. This is similar to how WikiProject SHIPS editors incorrectly believed for a long time that a date entered into the DANFS database (or into some other U.S. ship commission office) was the christening date for a ship, when it could be shown by news reports sometimes that the launching of a ship and its christening happened on a different, earlier date. It turned out the DANFS database (or whatever) date was the date that a government unit got around to entering it into their database, only. Here, I disbelieve that this was the first official recognition of the name of this lake, and it is not worth mentioning that this was the date that one bureaucratic unit "recognized" it. I have some familiarity myself with another lake in Quebec, "Sixteen Island Lake", from well before the "officialisation" date in 1996 reported in Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles (but maybe that is supposed to establish the official date for just the post office?). IMHO, there is no way in hell that this lake was not officially recognized in many ways, previously, before then, and before the 1968 date given in this other Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles. For 16 Island Lake, the Wikipedia article mentions, based on other source(s) that its name was in use by 1898 for the post office. Am I "daft" for asserting that this sentence should obviously be removed from the article (and/or from an area article which may cover the topic of the lake)? It was asserted in the AFD that my view is "daft" and that "Government websites may have mistakes, but we generally treat them as reliable sources."

Thank you for considering this question. I think this is my first time raising questions at wp:RSN, so please forgive me and direct me if I should be posing this differently somehow. (Also should this be registered as an RFC somehow?) --Doncram (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

So, this is just my opinion, for the little it is worth, but I share your concerns about the bureaucratic nature of the labeling. That said, I also think it is inherently notable that the government is making these assertions (even if sometimes dubious). Thus, for me, the best middle road would seem to be using such statements with attribution, and presenting conflicting information where it is available. On the other hand, we need to be careful not to venture too far into WP:OR territory. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. For another example, Édifice du Club-Universitaire-de-Montréal is about a club founded in 1906, whose building was built c.1912, and was listed as a monument historiques du Quebec on September 29, 1986. The "Date d'officialisation" is May 7, 2003. I don't think it is fair or appropriate to state the 2003 date in any way in an article about the club (long-needed, just created). --Doncram (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC) --01:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I do think you are a bit overthinking "date d'officialisation," as it seems to obviously simply mean the date said name was accepted by the Commission, and not the date of original naming or even government usage. Still, I understand the frustration. Dumuzid (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The Commission de toponymie du Québec, a government agency, checks place names in Quebec and gives a stamp of approval. They say they made "Lac Jumbo" official in 1972. I see no reason to doubt them. There are over 2,000 citations to them, so we have a massive clean-up job if they are dodgy. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no special knowledge of this, but I share Dumuzid's skepticism. What name appeared on government maps pre-1972? It should be easy to check. If it is the same, isn't that also a form of official recognition? It would be best if a source is found that explains precisely what listing by the Commission means, rather than guessing. McKay (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I found an article from Ghion Journal. I can't be sure whether the source is appropriate for Cold War II (renamed as Second Cold War). The source has POV commentary against the US mainstream media. I don't know which other sources have the same view as that source. -- George Ho (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am looking for clarification regarding scans of reliable sources on personal blogs. Specifically, would the scanned stories at https://dontparade.blogspot.com/2016/08/newsday-tv-book-august-6-12-1972.html qualify as "reliable" despite being hosted on blogger.

I reverted an editor for sourcing a claim sourced to the second image on the blog page on the basis of WP:BLOGS. However, the editor insists the original Newsday story is the source and not the blog. I can't find a policy or guideline addressing this issue directly but Youtube video clips are discussed by WP:NOYT: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher."

Following the advice at WP:NOYT would indicate that at screencap of a reliable source on a blog is not a reliable source. That said I highly doubt somebody has faked a screencap of a 50-year-old source about some uncontroversial information about a film so it is almost certainly a genuine rendering of the original news story. It is a essentially a DIY archive.

Is there a specific policy or guideline or general practice that governs this type of thing? Betty Logan (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Robert Stewart (saxophonist) there was a personal webpage with pressclippings, including WaPo, JazzTimes etc. Editors at the time felt these could be used to some extent, citing the publication, not the webpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Since these stories are from 1972, and there is no indication that the owner of the Blogger (RSP entry) blog has the right to republish the Newsday content, I would consider this to be copyright infringement. Per WP:COPYLINK, we should never link to material that infringes copyright. You can still cite the original Newsday articles, and it would be best if you could confirm the contents of the articles from a more trusted source (e.g. the actual Newsday book, or a trusted database like Newspapers.com or NewspaperArchive – available through The Wikipedia Library, and can be linked to), since it's difficult to determine if these scans are altered. However, don't link (or provide a URL) to the blog in the citation. — Newslinger talk 10:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• See this resource regarding Newspaper copyrights. It's pretty handy. I agree that the citation should be the actual source not the blog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the information! We don't know whether there is a copyright notice on the media (without access to the original media) since only part of the documents were photographed and shared, but I can't conclusively say that it's a copyright violation from what is presented in the blog. — Newslinger talk 16:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Something to remember here, the citation is not the link or the URL. The citation is the bibliographic information that allows someone else to find the original source. For a book or a newspaper article or something like that, it doesn't need to be online. If it is, and is available in a clean link unencumbered by copyright violations, a link is a nice thing, but you don't have to link to a direct copy of a source for a valid citation. Just give the full bibliographic details and you're fine. If you found it as a copyvio scan on a blog, don't tell anyone. Just cite the original article and leave it at that. You're fine. --Jayron32 14:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• One caution... it is not difficult to manipulate documents. Copies found on unreliable websites may not be “true to the original”. Always try to find and cite the original. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• We have an essay WP:Convenience link that explains the issues. I think the main points are: (1) Someone has to check that the copy matches the original; (2) Don't link to copyvios. McKay (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The BLP in question is Igor Ashurbeyli and the website is here. The micronation is Asgardia (a bit of a mess that I cleaned up a bit - mainly sourced to its website and a journal where he is editor-in-chief run by something he founded, Asgardia Independent Research Center). It looks as though it is used in other BLPs as well.[95] As a side issue, why can't I find the articles using ROOM[96] and asgardia.space with External links search? [97] I'm dubious about either of these being used as sources. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any information where that site is used on its own, or at least it is always part of a string of over-citation so there is really no need to keep it. To answer your question though, I would say it could be used with the same restrictions as an ABOUTSELF source. I would not use it as a source for his receipt of The State Science and Technology Prize or Gold UNESCO Medal. Jbh ^Talk 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with JBH. For non-controversial ABOUTSELF claims it's probably fine. For anything significant, no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"? at Andy Ngo that may be of interest to people who participate on this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like some help with some critical information added to the Helen Caldicott article. My problem is with the final paragraph in the "Early activity" section. It uses one source, Benjamin Redekop, who had his article "'Physicians to a dying planet’: Helen Caldicott, Randall Forsberg, and the anti-nuclear weapons movement of the early 1980s" published in The Leadership Quarterly. I've not been able to access his article but I did find this: [98] I'd guess that his estimation of Caldicott is right on, so that's not the problem. My problem is with calling him a historian and using what I believe to be cherry picked critical comments from his article which actually was about leadership styles. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for stating that the occurrence of the West African crocodile in the Guelta d'Archei is a consequence of the African humid period? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The book, Sulla: A Dictator Reconsidered, by Lynda Telford, published by Pen & Sword. I have found no mention of her having a specialization in any field and her writing appears to be that of more popular history than academic. Telford has also authored, Tudor Victims of the Reformation, Women in Medieval England, and Women of the Vatican: Female Power in a Male World.

Does anyone have any information concerning this author? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Pen & Sword is considered a mid quality popular history press. Telford doesn't seem to have any academic degree in history, so I would say fine for non-controversial information, use with caution for any disputed areas and avoid giving undue weight to opinions. Academic presses are usually the gold standard for history articles. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The subject has been discussed at Talk:Gas van/Archive 1#An eyewitness account. The source in question is an article by Alexander Lipkov entitled Я к вам травою прорасту… Роман свидетельств, i.e., I will sprout grass on you. Novel of Evidence. It has been published in the Russian-Language magazine Kontinent in 2005.[99] According to an entry on Johnson’s list, it is a Literary Quarterly publishing “stories, narratives and short novels”.[100] Lipkov is an author of books and documentaries. The texts mainly consists of interviews recorded during the filming of the documentary “I will sprout grass to you ...”, directed by A. Kolesnikov, 2005. This publication is used to support the following claim in the article on Gas vans

“According to an eyewitness, the executioners used multiple large trucks, each loaded with up to 50 naked people, some of which still remained alive upon arrival to the firing range.”

There is an additional note explaining:

The eyewitness, a former NKVD officer, was interviewed by Lidia Golovkova, the principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books, and by former FSB officer Mikhail Kirillin, who was a member of a group to rehabilitate victims of Stalinist repressions. According to a driver of such truck, the gassing was necessary to exclude the possibility of a riot.

My objection with this source is, that it does not include the actual “eyewitness account”. Rather it presents an interview with Lidia Golovkova and Mikhail Kirillin who report what the “eyewitness” has told them. They provide some biographical information, but neither the name of the “eyewitness”, nor any details, when, where and under what circumstances they collected the information. I consider that to be an unreliable primary source which should not be used as a source for Wikipedia in accordance with WP:PRIMARY.--Assayer (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Attribution would be best, "according to... an eyewitness...".Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Kontinent seems like a reasonable source for an interview, but yeah, I would suggest an in-text attribution. Interviews, I believe, are citable for yes, someone said this and it's WP:DUE, and the framing text can be used to establish their credentials (ie. yes, he is an eyewitness)... but they don't necessarily do fact-checking for the things people say. So that's a valid source for "an eyewitness said that they saw X" (or maybe even "an eyewitness quoted in Y said that they saw X"), but not for the fact that X is unambiguously true. --Aquillion (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think the journal and the author are fine and qualify as a secondary RS, but it is the best to provide direct citation and direct attribution. Also, one should double check where the claim originally comes from because the original source has been explicitly quoted ("...") in the secondary source. In one case, the original claim comes from Golovkova who was described in RS this, "a principal compiler of the Butovo memorial books". In another case, the original claim comes from Alexander Mikhailov, Major-General of the FSB Reserve: [101]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

in this case, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. People's recollections of events decades ago are frequently poor. TFD (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I think in this case we should not consider the reliability of the eyewitness, but that of Lidia Golovkova and Mikhail Kirillin. If they are telling us that this is a trustworthy story given their research on the subject, we don't need to check that ourselves, nor do we even need access to the primary source. We just need to ask what their reputation is. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not an "exceptional claim", but a claim consistent with all other sources on the subject, i.e. all sources that tell anything about Soviet gas vans. The only difference with other sources are a few details. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if that was a publication by Golovka and/or Kirillin on the subject, preferably with proper footnotes and sources, but it isn't. This is Golovka and Kirillin narrating what they know about the subject, stating that an eyewitness helped them to find out about the details what had happened at Butova. Without any information about the origin of the interview, without identification of the primary source, these claims are not verifyable. Nevertheless, if I understand the discussion correctly, in the article the claim should be attributed to Golovka/Kirillin instead to an "eyewitness", shouldn't it?--Assayer (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a narrative by Golovkova. However, she tells this is according to words by an NKVD officer (an eyewitness) who was a direct participant of these events. She and Kirillin said who he was and briefly described his biography. He was the key person who helped them to discover the Butovo firing range. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's ordinary in this type of situation for journalists and similar to not reveal the primary source of information, but this does not make the content unverifiable in Wikipedia-speak. That policy does not require us to be able to track down the ultimate source, and it should not either, when there is a good reason to expect a secret. If, as suggested by MVBW, this person helped G&K find that firing range, this directly shows that they didn't just seek to make a documentary of what people told them - they actually looked into what they were told to obtain both new and corroborating information. Basically, they were engaged in investigative journalism. So the question for us is whether G&K are reliable for that, in which case their validation of the primary source is sufficient. If the claim is not exceptional, it doesn't even necessarily need attribution. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes, your position that anything said by a former NKVD officer must be credible is not the standard required by reliable sources. It seems to me that you are willing to believe anything they say when it supports your beliefs. The only reliable source that mentions the topic says, "Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief of the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo."[102] It is sourced to an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda (a tabloid in the Soviet Union!), October 28, 1990, p. 2. The non-reliable sources used in the article embellish the story so that Berg was supervisor of a fleet of vans. But no other reliable source has paid any attention to the story, which means it is not reliable, because "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include...surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources." A google book search reveals four references to Berg: Cotton's book, a book with an excerpt from his book, a book from a non-academic publisher, probably sourced to Cotton's book and the Wikipedia article.[103] I don't even think that we can reliably state that Berg himself ever existed. TFD (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, this page currently does not refer at all to "Komsomolskaya Pravda". It uses 8 other RS including publications by academics and reputable historians in the part about Soviet gas vans (+ 2 more RS are noted on talk page). There are no doubts that Berg actually existed because some sources (including this one under discussion) tell about his criminal case kept in the Soviet archives, where the involvement of Berg in the use of gas vans has been officially recorded and discussed. If he was an actual "inventor" of the gas vans is less clear. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I know the article doesn't refer to Komsomolskaya Pravda, which is a good thing because it pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But it's the source that the only reliable source in the article cites for its information. It turns out though that the NKVD officer did exist, but he is referred to as "Isaiah Berg." TFD (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Kontinent, two things must be taken into account. First, according to the introduction, the author is a writer who specialized in cinematography. Furhermore, according to him, the text is a collection of eyewitness testimonies, and the author does not claim he did any fact checking. Therefore, it would be correct to see it as a collection of primary sources.

Second. Among the testimonies, I found the following statement:

"And the testimony of Berg himself, no matter what he says about himself, is by no means evidence. Maybe they knocked them out of him in the same way as he knocked them out of others at one time."

That means that, although the interrogation protocol looks reasonable, and Berg really directed exhaust fumes to a van(s) to prevent possible resistance of the victims, formally speaking, the interrogation protocol can be trusted at the same extent as a protocol of interrogation of Bukharin or Tukhachevsky.

That means Berg's interrogation protocol, the only document Komsomolskaya pravda article is based upon should be treated with caution. And, accordingly, that undermines a credibility of all other sources that are based solely on that KP article, including Solzhenitsyn, Albatz, Merridale, etc.

I think this book may be used in the article about the Great Purge as an example of an overall brutality of those time events, although it is desirable to double check these facts if possible.

In general, I would prefer to wait until this information is published in some good peer-reviewed scholarly journal before adding this content to Wikipedia. By using such poor quality sources for writing about such serious topics as the Great Purge, we make Wikipedia sensationalistic and journalistic in a worst sense, thereby undermining a credibility to this resource in general. Yes, some local newspaper may be a good source for an article about some High school, however, it is hardly a good source for an article about Uncertainty Principle. The articles about serious and important topics require serious sources, otherwise noone will trust Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The more I am reading the less this story seems clear to me. One testimony says:

"A thorough reconciliation was carried out in this reception building: whether the person who was brought is the one who was sentenced. There were so many namesakes that there were mistakes, and it happened that a man was sentenced to be shot, and they were shot after 3-4 weeks, because another was brought instead. There was even a unique case when a person was written that he was a Pole, and he was able to prove that he was Russian. And the decision of the “troika” was canceled."(...)"Screening of documents was carried out very carefully. Without a photograph, a person was not accepted. In each document it was written that photography is obligatory: the person checked against the photograph. And here, as the former commandant told, the decision was announced to the sentenced. You can imagine what was happening there after that."

That means after the victims arrived to the execution place, they were subjected to a strict identification procedure before they were shot, and, in some rare cases they were released. That would be impossible if they were suffocated to death during transportation. All of that is very odd...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, the quotation above ("A thorough reconciliation ...) is irrelevant because it is not about people who were transported by gas vans, but about people who were shot at the firing range (most people were simply shot after transportation by ordinary trucks, according tho this and other sources about Butovo firing range). Secondly, no one suggested to include the testimony by Berg to the page. And yes, his case by itself is not a proof of anything. No one tells it's a proof. We only know from this source (according to Golobkova) the following. In 1953, the family of Berg filed for rehabilitation. Then his case was reviewed, and the gas van story came to light. Several executioners, who were then all alive, were called and interviewed. Two of them admitted that gas vans were used, but two others denied it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"That means Berg's interrogation protocol...". This is all original research. For example, there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references ([...]). None of these books directly quotes the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda. Instead, the experts tell their own views (Albats: Owning to the shortage of executioners, Chekists used trucks that were camouflaged as bread vans as mobile death chambers. Yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built). We are not in the business of speculating how exactly experts or historians on the subject came to their conclusions. We simply say what RS (their books) say. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, the first English article about the Soviet gas vans was written by holocaust-denier Udo Walendy in 1991.[104] and it has been the subject of extensive literature by holocaust deniers. It feeds into their world view: not only didn't the Nazis gas anyone but the Jews did. Basically all we have is a few second or third hand stories which have only been taken seriously in one reliable source, which is a red flag. Why don't Rummel, Valentino, Courtois and all the other writers on Stalin's mass killings mention it? Probably because they have a higher standard of reliability than we apply to the article. TFD (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There's an article about this on "Holocaust Controversies," an anti-denialist website founded by Nicholas Terry, a senior lecturer in history at Exeter. See "A Study In Hypocrisy: The "Revisionist" Treatment Of The "Soviet Gas Vans"". It makes the point that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not the claim is true. TFD (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the claim that Nicholas Terry is saying there is insufficient evidence to prove one way or another? He states:

’’”Needless to say, it was a one-time, local, makeshift invention, not widely used. There is no credible evidence that its use was well-known at the time and it certainly has no relation to the well-documented Nazi gas vans.”’’

Terry seems to accept that Soviet gas vans did in fact exist, but were not well known or used on the same scale as Nazi gas vans. So what exactly is the issue here? —Nug (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Terry seems to accept Soviet gas vans probably existed, but it is hard to tell anything for sure. That contradicts to the claim that that fact was firmly established and well described in reputable scholarly sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Nug, that's out of context. Terry means that if the vans existed, it was one time etc. That's clear from the preceding comments: "The evidence on which the claim is based is reviewed in L. Golovkova (ed.) et al., Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938. V Rodnom Kraju; Dokumenty, Svidetel'stva, Sud'by, Vol. 8, Moscow, 2004, pp. 72ff. The authors had access to all the relevant files and don't make any conclusion as to the historicity of the gas vans....Leading deniers accept the "Soviet gas vans" story based on rumors, hearsay, and unsourced statements of various people who don't even pretend to be witnesses....The nature of the sources does not permit us to make "strong" conclusions. And neither can this evidence be dismissed." TFD (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the book by Golovkova (ed.) et al., Butovskij Poligon: 1937-1938. V Rodnom Kraju is a valid source, just as one discussed in this thread. If anyone has access to this book and can directly quote what it actually tells on the subject, that can be included on the page. I assume her statements in the book will be consistent with her statements in the source under discussion. Are you saying that the book holocaust-denier Udo Walendy need to be used for references on the page? None of other ~10 sources about Soviet gas vans even mentioned this book. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

However, the link to "A Study In Hypocrisy..." is just a blog post by someone who claimed to be "Sergey Romanov". This should be completely ignored, unless reliably published. Whatever it tells about work by Golovkova, etc. can be just a fantasy by someone on the internet. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I sure saw that coming.... Well, that blog has been frequently cited by historians like Mark Hobbs in the The Routledge History of Genocide, and Gordon Thomas/Greg Lewis, Defying Hitler. Nicolas Terry has also edited a volume on Holocaust and Genocide Denial for Routledge in 2017. So, that's not the usual kind of blog.

For example, there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references One of the oddest arguments I have ever heard. As if historians just name or don't name their sources at will. Well, the article in the tabloid is the only reference given by Solzhenitsyn, Albats and Colton. Solzhenitsyn even writes, that he learned about the gas vans "from the astonishing disclosure in 1990".--Assayer (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you propose to use this blog as a source on the page? We can't even if it was cited by someone else. Books (like "The Routledge History of Genocide", or "Defying Hitler" you mentioned) can of course be cited if they tell something about the Soviet gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Conversely if books like the Routledge History of Genocide don't mention it, then there is little reason why we should. Terry's blog, which is rs per WP:SELFPUB, tells us that the story has received very little coverage in reliable sources (although it is widely cited in anti-Semitic and anti-Communist literature), and fact-checkers would rate it as "unproved." It is certainly a red flag. I don't therefore see any reason to include it. The second hit for gas vans isai berg on Google search after this article is a right-wing blog that says, "Another Jewish mass murderer was Isai Berg, As it turns out, Berg invented the mobile gas chamber, which he used to murder opponents of the Holodomor." The rest of the hits are pretty much the same, except for Terry's website. It's certainly something that one would be very likely to read about if one got all one's information from relevant mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this search is more trustworthy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• If subject X was NOT included in an encyclopedia or a book, this simply means it was considered as a low-importance subject by authors, nothing more. Yes, this is arguably a low-significance subject. Google searches tell the same. But it does not mean there are no sources on the subject. The specific sources have been provided. If I understand correctly, no one suggests using the blog. Yes, it is WP:SELFPUB, but not by Terry. It was signed and posted by this user [105]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the beginning of this story, I would like to see examples of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from the memoirs collected by Lipkov. By its style, and even a name, it is a compilation of testimonies, i.e. it is a primary source. The very title of this book ("Novel of evidences") implies the author does not pretend he presents his own analysis. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• In re: there is no any reason or sources to assume that the claims in books by Albats and Solzhenitsyn were based exclusively on a publication in the tabloid, even if they used it as one of references -- what other sources did they use? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There IS a reason to claim that Solzhenitsyn used only the KP article as a source. That automatically follows from Solzhenitsyn's own words. Here is a full quote:

"А вот поразительное промелькнувшее в 1990 сообщение, из которого мы узнали, что знаменитые душегубки изобретены, оказывается, вовсе не у Гитлера во Вторую Мировую войну – а в советском НКВД в 1937. И изобрёл их (да не в одиночку, наверно, но организатор изобретения был он) – Исай Давидович Берг, начальник АХО (адмхозотдела) УНКВД Московской области. Вот почему бывает важно знать, кто занимал вовсе и не верхние посты. А получилось так. И. Д. Бергу было поручено исполнять решения "тройки" УНКВД МО – и Берг исправно выполнял поручение: возил на расстрелы. Но когда в Московской области стали заседать одновременно три "тройки" – уже справиться было расстрельщикам невозможно. Тогда и догадались: жертв раздевать догола, связывать, затыкать рты и бросать в закрытый грузовик, снаружи замаскированный под хлебный фургон. На перегоне выхлопные газы шли внутрь грузовика – и до дальнего рва арестанты были уже "готовенькие". (Надо сказать, что и сам Берг вскоре был расстрелян, в 1939, – но не за эти злодейства, разумеется, а по обвинению в "заговоре". И в 1956 – благополучно реабилитирован, хотя в следственном деле его и тогда хранилась, и дохранилась вот до новейшего времени, и прочтена журналистами – история этого душегубного изобретения!)[883]"

Google translates it quite adequately, so I don't show a translation here. Only the first sentence and the ref 883 are important here. The first sentence says: "But the astonishing message that flashed in 1990, from which we learned that the famous dushegubkas were invented (....) in the Soviet NKVD in 1937.", and the ref 883 is Zhirnov's article in Komsomolskaya pravda, 1990. That means Solzhenitsyn explicitly writes that all information he was operating was taken from that 1990 article by Zhirnov.

In my opinion, Solzhenitsyn is a good source, and very useful one, for it demonstrates that Solzhenitsyn didn't know anything about Soviet gas vans before 1990.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: this citation shows that Solzhenitsyn used the article in Komsomolskaya pravda as his source. Was it his only source? I do not know because he tells "by journalists" (plural). But you are missing the point: the book by Solzhenitsyn is a lot more reliable source than the article in Komsomolskaya pravda - per WP:RS. Therefore, we should use his book as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• • Non-RS for the purpose of the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

In 1990, when the first article about gas vans appeared, Komsomolskaya_Pravda was printed in tabloid format, but years passed before it descended to tabloid journalism.     ←   ZScarpia   05:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable. Seems this section has gone off topic, discussing other sources like Solzhenitsyn. Agree with the initial comments by third parties at the start of this section, Kontinent appears to be a valid source for interviews, with appropriate attribution. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I was wondering if Private Wealth Magazine could be considered reliable, I wanted to use this article[Rocks & Wealth] on my draft about a female CEO. Does it count as reliable and independent or is it PR work? MasterWikiEdit (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

MasterWikiEdit, I don't see any past discussion on this noticeboard of that particular magazine, but that article does not look reliable at all to me - it's absolutely PR and reads as an interview thinly disguised as an "article". You can potentially use it under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy with caution for coverage of minor, noncontroversial details (say, the subject's hometown or alma mater). creffett (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this ref...

https://twitter.com/MrTeller/status/1158152584642777089

...reliable for this edit?

birth_name = Raymond Joseph Teller --> birth_name = Raymond Joseph Derrikson Teller[106]

Most other references disagree.[107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117]

Could he have been exaggerating -- adding his mother's name -- for effect? Using both parent's names on a birth certificate was pretty rare in 1948. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the tweet is in context of a joke (the airline reservation aspect), definitely take with grain of salt until it is confirmed in a separate post by Teller or another RS. This is the general problem with Twitter is that in 140 characters (even in context of other tweets), intent is easily lost, and it hard to tell if Teller - who is known in comedy - is being serious or not. I would leave out. --Masem (t) 15:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would say it shouldn't be used. WP:ABOUTSELF would normally allow uncontroversial details, but the fact that it contradicts secondary sourcing makes it WP:EXCEPTIONAL. --Aquillion (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it[118] and so far the IP has not re-reverted. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen some URLs that have "bbs" included.

Here's a site example. Some BC links I've seen have little or no information on the photos posted. Ominae (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Avalanche levels of WP:SNOW. ToThAc (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Should CNN be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else?

See [119]

Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• See Project Veritas for YouTube channel. X1\ (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (CNN)

• No No more then most other news organs. Certainly no more then Project Veritas.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Ah James O'Keefe, the guy most famous for lying and breaking the law to fabricate a story and have a non-profit shut down, when it turns out they had already reported him to the police. No, I'm not sure he is someone you should really be taking seriously for anything at all. GMG^talk 15:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Uh, No. For obvious reasons. --Masem (t) 15:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• "CNN is unreliable. Check out this video saying so from an organization whose sole purpose is to pump out fabricated, misleading and deceptively edits videos". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• No it is a very reliable source with highly respected journalists Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Obviously not. There are certainly limits to CNN's reliability, but clearly should not be deprecated. It's frankly disturbing to see an apparently experienced editor propose as much based on a Project Veritas youtube video. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• No - An attack by Project Veritas should be worn as a badge of honor. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• HAHAHA! Nope. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• No To be honest, the Project Veritas report may be 100% true and I would still say no. CNN has plenty of good content and we should not nuke the whole source even if the PV report is 100% spot on. Really we should stop deprocating sources period. It's a process that shouldn't exist and it's ripe for abuse. If a particular CNN article is really a bad source for a particular wiki article then that specific citation should be discussed. Remember that OR is 100% OK when discussing if a particular article is reliable. The deprocation game needs to stop. We have this notice board for these discussions. We shouldn't make any source "automatically" unreliable. Springee (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• No as it is considered a prominent news outlet. If we deprecate CNN, we have to also deprecate many other biased news outlets (I don´t know of any news outlet that isn´t biased) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh... I will give the same answer I give when people ask if Fox News should be depreciated: “NO... BUT...”. The “BUT” is a reminder that ALL media sources need to be carefully examined. Breaking News Reports often have inaccurate or incomplete information (information that is corrected or improved in later reporting). We also need to separate News reporting from Opinion. Each has a place in WP, but they can become blurred. When in doubt, treat it as opinion and include in-text attribution. And (in general) if only one outlet is saying something, then hesitate to include it. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• No: No RS given for justification. Is this lulz trolling? X1\ (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• No. This RFC is so far off-base that it's almost indistinguishable from trolling. --Calton | Talk 22:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• No way. One gonzo journalist's allegations aren't a good basis for deprecating any source, let alone one with a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This should be SNOW closed. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (CNN)

I just looked at Reuters and it seems to be SO much more objective in its reporting of similar events than either CNN or FOX. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• No one is saying that CNN is the most reliable news source in existence. The question is, "is it reliable enough to be used?" Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello fellow editors. I would like your advice and opinion regarding an edit I made. I have recently added information in the aftermath section of the page Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen that talks about Security Belt operation against AQAP in 2018 in an operation called Crushing Revenge. I had added the information in that article but I was reverted by a user called sharabsalam. He first told me that the article talks about Al qaeda insurgency till 2011, in which I have explained that this information is about the aftermath (the aftermath section talks about AQAP details from 2012-2019, listing multiple battles and outcomes of the insurgency since 2011). He then proceeded to tell me that this information is from an UAE propaganda outlet and cannot be trusted, and reverted me again. Even though however, my edit had another source from sanaacenter.org [120]. He has still reverted my edit regardless on basis of "propaganda". On further research I also found a UN experts document that talks about the operation [https://www.securitycouncilreport.org › ...PDF S/2019/83 - Security Council Report] that also mentions the operation against AQAP. The most detailed information on that operation however comes from The National source.

I don't know what sharabsalam means when he says its a propaganda source even though it talks about two different factions (security belt forces and AQAP), not UAE. He also mentioned in my talkpage about UAE lieing about the operation and actually paying AQAP to look like they won, but that source is in a totally different battle! (Battle of Mukalla in 2016)... it has nothing to do with the information I added which talks about an operation against AQAP in 2018.

I would like your ask your advice here as I was advised to do so by a very kind editor (El C). Is the national source reliable? Are my edits in that page acceptable or is sharabsalam right to revert all my edits there?

Please let me know if there is something wrong with the way I am writing information in wikipedia. I would appreciate any helping rope here. Thanks. Graull (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source in question is The National (Abu Dhabi). While there is some evidence to conclude that the paper is a de facto UAE propaganda outlet, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be used. (The "controversies" section mentions censorship, but not false information or fabricated stories). I would put it in a similar category as RT, and you should try to find a second source for the information if possible. The Sana Center appears to be reasonably reliable, but like other think tanks probably needs to be attributed in-text. Overall, I think your additions were reasonable although you should have an inline citation for the first paragraph. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 10:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes thank you! I agree with you on the source bring similar to RT. Going with a similar mindset, then we should also ban RT, Aljazeera, foxnews and other pro governmemt sources which is ridiculous I will add the UN experts source into the edit I made as well as follow your advice and add an inline text. I will re-add my edit. The user who is against my add is welcome to discuss here why he thinks that adding this information is so wrong. Graull (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am currently outside. I will give full response when I am free. The national is government-owned newspaper there is no way you can compare it to Fox news. The security belt forces is a UAE-backed forces. This is why I opjected.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I might have agreed with you if it was the only source, however the operation was mentioned by the Sana center, criticalthreats.org, and the UN security council report!! I have supplemented by edit with all these sources. It's also mentioned in multiple Arabic sources (not UAE owned or based, so you won't say it's also propaganda).. It's clearly sourced so you can't just claim it's a fabrication because one of the sources is query propaganda.

Also, I saw your edit history and in 2019 Najran attack there's sources from pro-Iranian Al Alam TV as well as multiple other places were you have said that Iranian/Houthi claims are reliable (such as Houthis denying antisemitism and Houthis victory over Saudi in operation victory from God). You also removed a BBC source that said the Houthis videos failed to show victory because according to you the Houthis released more information. No one said the operation is fabricated and deleted all that information because information came from "propaganda source" even though multiple reliable sources such as the BBC and Guardian questioned the Houthis operation claims. You can't just remove a source because you don't like it. If you have a source that questions the claims you can add it, but not delete the whole thing because you don't like it. Graull (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, For sometime now, we have been dealing with a group of users with POV using non reliable-"sources" in Rojava and pretty much all related articles (see corresponding template). Most of these "sources" are not neutral and have Conflict of Interest issues, including news agencies. Below are some examples for stories and sources in question:

• ARA News [121]
• Hawar News [122]
• Rudaw [123]
• ANF News [124]
• New Compass [125]
• Wordpress [126]
• Open Democracy [127]
• Kurdistan24 [128]

And many many more. I am not exaggerating if I say the legitimacy of that article is based on these sources. There have been multiple attempts at resolving some credibility, notability and OR issues in the article, but a group of users are simply not allowing any compromise to happen. Is there a way to look into this? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• OpenDemocracy has already been discussed at RSN, here: discussion concluded that it can be used for attributed statements of opinion per WP:RSOPINION, but did not establish a reputation for fact-checking. Wordpress sources are almost never usable because WP:SPS. I don't know anything about the others.

Don't assume that because a source has political bias that it can't be used. Accuracy matters more; see WP:PARTISAN. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 06:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also it's somewhat inaccurate to say that Rojava Report is sourced to "Wordpress" - it probably isn't a WP:RS but it's pretty clearly billing itself as a news portal rather than a blog or opinion outlet. Its URL is somewhat unprofessional, but is largely immaterial. Plenty of major newspapers use a Wordpress platform. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

During the first FAC of Mullum Malarum, this book was rejected as RS. Vensatry said, "Although [Pride of Tamil Cinema] had won a special mention at the 62nd National Film Awards, it looks like a WP:MIRROR, as the book paraphrases stuff from Wikipedia articles and the NFA archives of Directorate of Film Festivals." Co-ordinator Utcursch said, "Pride of Tamil Cinema explicitly mentions Wikipedia articles as its sources. It also cites some websites that would be considered questionable by WP:RS standards. Therefore, its use as a reference in an FA is questionable." When I raised this issue some years ago, Utcurshs' view remained unchanged. However, recently Fowler&fowler said, "Dhananjayan's mention of Wikipedia means that he read the Wikipedia page, and may have been influenced by it, may have included some content, or meta-content, from it somewhere, but not in verbatim form. It doesn't outright invalidate the use of the book in a Wikipedia article." (read more here) In fact, the Mullum Malarum chapter in the book did not copy from Wiki at all. So what to do? Who's right? Is the book usable to any extent? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Utcursch, you got time? --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, there are some parts of the book that don't rely on Wikipedia, and can be used as a source. But I haven't read the book (or have access to a copy), so I can't say if it's suitable as a source in a particular context. The use of this book as a source is best discussed on the article talk page in a given context. utcursch | talk 14:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Utcursch, yes. Some films in the book did not have Wiki articles before the book was published, such as Uchi Veyil and Meendum Oru Kaathal Kathai. Should I scan those pages and share as proof? Ditto with other chapters which did not copy from Wiki? --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This is best discussed on the article talk pages on a case to case basis. You can use the book as a source, and drop a note on the article's talk page to see if someone has objections or has a better source. Uploading scanned pages would be copyright violation. utcursch | talk 13:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Livefist Defence a reliable source? I think it is. It is edited by senior India Today journalist Shiv Aroor, who can be credited with getting hold of the first footage of the highly secretive K4 SLBM.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Cheddar (TV channel) a reliable source? Most sources that would cite Cheddar are video news casts. The specific page that brought me here was Draft:GameMine, which used [129] as a source to try to prove notability. I get the feel that sponsor content on the platform may not be well disclosed/is cleverly integrated to look like real content. Your thoughts and research on the matter are appreciated. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Brand integration and other native advertising means that we can't guarantee that its coverage of any product is independent. If it's not independent you might as well be citing press releases, so I can't really see the use of the source. I wouldn't count it for establishing notability (unless you can prove that the coverage in question isn't native advertising). Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 05:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)