Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 230

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 225←Archive 228Archive 229Archive 230Archive 231Archive 232→Archive 235

Deleted tweet as reliable source

I have a question about citing Twitter. My understanding is that Tweets can be cited as a reliable source as long as WP:BLPSELFPUB is met. What about tweets which are subsequently deleted by the Twitter account holder? I came across this discussion at User talk:B#Uploaded Image Not In Use_2 in which an editor had uploaded a screenshot of a deleted tweet to Wikipedia as non-free content and then was trying to cite that upload in Peter Levy (presenter) as Peter Levy (presenter)#cite_note-5. The file has been deleted per WP:NFCCP and citiing Wikipedia as RS is never allowed per WP:WPNOTRS, so the uploaded file shouldn't have been used that way. Could the actual tweet/Twitter account be cited instead? Sources are not required to be online, only published, but an archived copy needs to exist for verification purposes. Could the uploader just use a variation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to cite the tweet? Of course, all of this is predicated upon the fact that the tweet is authentic and that otherwise qualifies as an RS. How does Wikipedia usually treat stuff such as this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

How would you verify it wasn't a (supposedly deleted) fake tweet? Such as this one: Fake James Harrison Tweet (James Harrison Clarifies Stance on Anthem Protests in Wake of Fake Tweet). You also might have issues in that the tweet may have been published by a publicity team (or even compromised access to the twitter account) - and then pulled by the BLP (so - this wouldn't be something he actually said in such a case - but a stmt by his media team which he didn't stand for, and was retracted... And many high-profile Twitter/Facebook accounts are run by media teams - not the BLP (Trump included - though Trump does allegedly self-post a high proportion - but he is notable for doing so (and not relying on a media team exclusively)). Sort of sounds like an alleged private recording of a BLP or a private photograph of a blackboard that the BLP has written on (though there are some sites who deal with deleted tweets - [1] [2]). Frankly - unless a RS (even not a great one, but one you could trust not to doctor the image of the tweet - e.g. (didn't check reliability of these - just examples of cited deleted tweets) [3] [4] [5]) has referenced the deleted tweet - there are WP:V and WP:UNDUE issues.Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Icewhiz. FWIW, I agree with you. I just wanted some more feedback before removing the citation and relevant content from the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Only in death and Softlavender for the input and for checking the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Need Geisler and Nix et al added as reliable source citations

Hello, I am trying to cite several Textual Criticism Science books in several articles that are cited very poorly with late and erroneous research. The reasoning is given is that Moody publisher is Christian based. This is discriminatory to be clear. Geisler and Nix draw upon thousands of articles and other early to late science books. Wikipedia needs to be a little less biased. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

I'm talking people about the same old game

Their running them numbers and the winners never change The dice is loaded, the deck is stacked

The game itself will hold you back

— Thievery Corporation, The Numbers Game
By "the game" I mean WP:PAG. In case anyone wonders, this is sarcasm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is the source WP:FRINGE? Because, as seen from Moody, even Wheaton is liberal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Feelings and poetry do not belong in scientific research methodologies. Mark0880 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Your opinions are very subjective and emotional. I want to see real evidence posted, not your biased opinions. Please stop reverting my citations. Mark0880 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark 0880
You won't obtain that by casting aspersions nor by exhortations. You have been invited to make a cogent case why Moody fulfills WP:IRS. I am still waiting for such reply. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Like I already proved, Moody is based on verifiable factual data - and thousands of other sources. Moody's research meets all the requirements for Wiki required resources. There's no emotion in that. Please comply to Wiki standards. Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Do you need to see the bibliography in those volumes to make a decision? Mark0880 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Which article, which source, and which content are you attempting to support/challenge?Icewhiz (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
He complains about this: [6]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Basically ANY Textual Criticism text that is generally accepted in most classrooms around the world. For example:

From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible Moody Publishers; Revised, Expanded ed. edition (August 1, 2012) p.159. 978-0802428820

A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Publishers; Revised, Expanded ed. edition (August 8, 1986) p. 420. 978-0802429162

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library) 2nd Edition Baker Academic; 2 edition (May 1, 2001) 

Walter A. Elwell  978-0801020759
I think I have more of an anti-(extreme)-fundamentalism bias, but that's in the eye of the beholder. I do admit that Moody is a reliable source for Moody's views (all authors express reliably their own views), but not for establishing objective historical facts in Wikipedia's voice. Anyway Moody affirms that the NT was written before 100 AD, while the somewhat vaguely sourced reference in our article puts it "before 150 AD". So that's apparently a contradiction which would have to be addressed before stating 100 AD as objective fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
StAnselm, I wish that I had a neat Wikipedic answer to this problem, but some of what is taught at Christian fundamentalist or conservative evangelical institutions is so far-off from everything taught upon the Bible at secular universities that the former are either minority or fringe for Wikipedia. Their views are notable, and should be rendered, but not stated as facts in the voice of Wikipedia. (Secular does not mean atheist, it means belonging to laity.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
In many issues there is a spectrum, and that is particularly true for dates. Taking the date of the last book of the NT, I think pre-90 is a minority but not fringe; 90-110 would be majority; 110-150 would be minority but not fringe; after 150 would be fringe. StAnselm (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not mean that the pre-100 AD dating would be fringe. I stated that citing a book by Moody for verifying it is fringe (or at least Moody expresses the views of a tiny minority). Moody represents a tiny share of all world's Christians and is academically marginal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your objectivity. I was not sure if my changes were not being saved. That is why I reverted. I have not reverted and am trying this method to have better citations in several articles I am trying to help on. I am trying to cite unbiased sources that rely on scholarly research and sound methodologies. I have found several users to be quite uncivil and inflexible, not to mention unwilling to consider sources. Norman Geisler and William Nix are in their own pages. These two men are excellent examples in their field of Textual Criticism. Mark0880 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Yes, but the Norman Geisler article doesn't mention him being a textual critic. It would be much better to go with someone like Daniel B. Wallace. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
In their volumes they state that the books they are writing are "General Introductions" to the Science of Textual Criticism. Good point though, however just b/c WP does not list them as Textual Critics, does not mean they are not either. Consider this quote from p. 22 in A General Introduction to The Bible. "The scholarly procedure of TEXTUAL CRITICISM(see chap. 26) treats this problem by showing the accuracy of the copies of the originals. To borrow this conclusion in advance, the copies are known to be accurate and sufficient in all matters except minor details. The resultant situation, then, exists that although only the autographs are inspired, it may be said nevertheless that all good copies or translations are adequate"..(emphasis mine). The phrase is mentioned 114 times in this volume alone. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Textual Criticism. Mark0880 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Can I get an update on where we are with the source reliability of Geisler and Nix? Or do we know the ETA on that? Thank you, Mark0880 (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
I think I have to point out that citing Elwell wasn't subject of being reverted in that article. I have reverted citing Elwell at [7] which on further examination seems rather off-topic than unreliably sourced (though a couple of other unreliable sources were indeed quoted). Why should "Outside of Roman Catholicism the canon is accepted to have been completed before AD 100" be mentioned at Canonization (which is about being declared a saint, not about the canon of the Bible)? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Mark0880, I think that you have not understood WP:IRS: being a reliable source for facts is for us mostly a matter of academic reputation, being a mainstream scholar/scientist, publisher's reputation, academic consensus/majority view vs. minority/fringe views, peer-reviewed reviews of the work, and only in exceptional cases we discuss stuff like factual errors in the source. No editor is trusted upon his word of honor that the source would be filled with verifiable facts and should be therefore accepted upon his testimony as a reliable source. The gist: Moody is marginal, both as number of believers who think or would possibly think that Moody accurately represents their views, and as in being academically marginal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Moody is marginal in your opinion. In the real world, Geisler and Nix are being used in top rated colleges around the world due to it's comprehensiveness and excellent source citations. I still am requesting of reviewal of this author and source since it's used as a consensus, peer-reviewed work, in history and science classes everywhere.Mark0880 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Moody sees Wheaton as liberal. Why is that? Because Moody is hard-core fundamentalist, i.e. by definition marginal. Also, as told before, no editor is believed upon his word of honor (yes, this includes me). Always quote WP:SOURCES if you want to prove some fact.

Second thing: my education. Or lack of it. I’ve already mentioned that I was and still am grateful for the massive inundation that I received in the Bible. I do not say “biblical studies” because there was in fact very, very little scholarship involved. There was mastery of the Bible. And of what very conservative evangelical scholars said about the theology of the Bible. But in terms of academics, there was not much more.

— Bart Ehrman, My Resentment at Moody Bible Institute, ehrmanblog.org
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok Tgeorgescu I want to make this clear again.... Geisler and Nix textbooks are history books. History is not "fundamentalis" or whatever. Now Ehrman on the other hand is very controversial b/c his peers incl FF Bruce strongly disagree with his work. He is not providing fair and balanced source citations and reviews. Any internet search will show you that, for example, https://jwwartick.com/2012/09/14/fgu-geisler-nix/ This and many others prove that Ehrman's writing is to be considered marginal. I am reaching out to my professors today for their opinions too though. Mark0880 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
In fact, most History Professors out there would probably tell you that Ehrman is not a reliable source. He certainly does not meet wiki's guidelines for peer-reviewed sources. Mark0880 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Get real, man! You got it upside down: Ehrman is the big gorilla, Moody professors are the underdogs. If you need a briefing upon who's who in Bible scholarship, see Video on YouTube. If you will continue making such preposterous arguments you won't go very far inside Wikipedia. Ehrman has a named chair at a major university. Ehrman's books are widely used in world's secular universities. Is Wartick a full professor at a major university? Why should we listen to him? How many books of your professors have been published by Oxford University Press and how many books by Ehrman have been published at OUP? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course it's "upside down" to you. You prb want the history to match your belief system, I dont know. But I DO know that a youtube video's not going to fly as a reliable source either. Geisler and Nix were publishing books (hundreds of them in their careers so far) before Ehrman was a Zygote. Where are you getting your facts my friend? Perhaps you might want to reach out to one of your professors, too. Just an idea though. Mark0880 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
My professors of religious studies at the University of Amsterdam use Ehrman's book for teaching Christianity. Also at Vrije Universiteit, see [8]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you ask them what they think of G/N? Rereading this thread, I agree with StAnselm (talk) . You seem to have a penchant for your own opinion with a bias against evangelicalism. Mark0880 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
I am no longer a student. Also, I do not work there. A source for UvA: [9]. See? We need to discuss objective facts like this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate bias too, as it fails to allow the historical consensus to be known by the public, and replaces the accepted facts with opinions and fringe theories. Sad indeed. Mark0880 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Again, inside Wikipedia fringe means what WP:PAGs say that fringe is, namely WP:FRINGE. Don't make preposterous arguments! Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that Ehrman's a late-comer who has majored in the minors in order to distort history to make a name for himself. Ehrman certainly falls into the fringe category as he is not in step with his contemporaries nor the accepted world historical facts. It is what is it bud. Mark0880 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0800
That's wishful thinking! Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Guess we'll just have to wait and see! Mark0880 (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
If you cannot make any cogent argument why Geisler complies with WP:IRS, we're done here. Assertions by fiat are not cogent arguments. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ive proven several times over that the comprehensiveness of G/N is the generally accepted literature. I cannot make you see this fact. So far you've relied on one fringe source, a very poor one, and arent allowing the consensus to shine through. That's not right. So yes, you are done here, not me. I will be back with some Doctorate Professors words on the matter later however, so this thread needs to be kept open. Mark0880 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Obviously WP:NOTHERE. May some close this thread before he fills it with more ad nauseam assertions by fiat? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. I want to post some Doctorate's words, and I would like a Sr level Admin to review this dispute. It's utterly unthinkable that an everyday accepted textbook is not being allowed. Mark0880 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
The WP:BURDEN is upon you to prove what you claim. Till now you haven't proven it, you have just asserted it (quoting Wartick isn't proof). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What other "proof" do you need? Biographies? The bibs from A General Intro? You need to clarify since Ive already proven my point that G&N are reliable and Ehrman is not. Mark0880 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
You have not produced any verifiable evidence for your claims. You just make assertions by fiat. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to say, going after a view or source because they represent a conservative position strikes me as political. What ought to matter is legitimate scholarship, and by my lights, legitimate scholarship can come from all parts of the spectrum. The proper way to reject this source is by showing that what it says is faulty. Disagreeing with your politics or ideology is not a weakness of the source. Nor is it WP:IRS policy to discriminate against conservative sources.

Show a problem with the scholarship other than the fact that they don't subscribe to your ideology. Approaching (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So far, you've only shown you have a major, inflexibility and a bias against widely accepted, world historical facts and evangelicalism. Your articles are poorly cited, contain a lot of opinions w/o citations, and are extremely skewed. Again, sad. Mark0880 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
What does "by my lights" mean please? Mark0880 (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Also it would be helpful to show some reasoning why G&N's citations are not correct in your opinion. You have yet to do that. Mark0880 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Approaching, I don't have a problem with it being a conservative source, WP:IRS has a problem with it for being published at a marginal press, by apologists instead of established Bible scholars. As StAnselm told him, he should quote Daniel B. Wallace and end the argument about Geisler. I was not the first established editor who reverted him at New Testament and not the last one. That should give him pause. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you prove Moody is marginal? Ive never heard any professor make that claim, nor have I seen it online. I am working on getting Daniel B. Wallace but I own several G&N books so thats what I can use right now. Please allow peer reviewed historical research to be included in wikipedia. I cannot even believe I have to ask this. Mark0880 (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
See above: I was not the first to revert you and not the last one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see WP:IRS as saying anything against problematic about the source that isn't addressed by looking for other sources. What, specifically, is being cited in IRS against the source? And can it be established that the relevant authors are not real scholars? What do their CVs say? Approaching (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, if he wants to present it as WP:RS for Moody's views, that is OK with me. It isn't OK as establishing objective historical facts in the voice of Wikipedia, seen that in the article have been cited much better sources which contradict it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Approaching (talk) thats exactly what Im trying to say.... the references I have meet all qualifications, yet are being vehemently blocked. Mark0880 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Moody is just a publisher, not the maker of historical factual references. Not sure why there's so much pushback on peer reviewed and accepted sources. Mark0880 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0800
Perhaps you should read WP:RS again (or for the first time, what do I know?). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
In other words, the thousands of citations in G&N's books bibs are not "Moody's" they are simply history that's been verified by the community at large.
Ehrman on the other hand is quite the opposite, but that's being accepted blindly for some reason I do not get.Mark0880 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
I have presented my sources that Ehrman's books are used to teach Christianity at University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit. Do you challenge the information that he has a named chair at a major US university? Or that he has published several books at Oxford University Press? Since these all matter in respect to WP:RS. What sources have you provided for your claims? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence that Moody doesn't involve credible scholars. Nor am I seeing any support for the claim that there is anything in WP:IRS challenging its inclusion. Now the claim is that there are better sources. If they are demonstrably better, it shouldn't be hard to find consensus on this issue. What are these better sources? Approaching (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And Ehrman's thrust is to disprove Christianity. He's a known disbeliever, a former Christian who's extremely angry and has an big axe to grind against all religions, esp Christianity. That's a well-known fact and Ive watched him in debates.Mark0880 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Stop making bizarre arguments! One source we know for sure is Ehrman's book published at Oxford University Press. He is an established Bible scholar and his book is published at a reputable academic press. Geisler's book isn't either. Other sources are hinted at vaguely in our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Even mainstream news knows about this guys "scholarship". http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/ ... "Yet even many of Ehrman's critics say he has a knack for making arcane New Testament scholarship accessible to the public." But the accepted peer reviewed facts are discard on these wiki pages. Ehrman is fringe, G&N are standards. How difficult is this  ???? Mark0880 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
CNN website has been written by a full professor from a secular university? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
And here's an article that puts Ehrman in the same category as Dawkins! http://www.stephenjbedard.com/2014/07/17/bart-ehrman-and-richard-dawkins-who-is-the-most-dangerous/ lol Mark0880 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
I said stop making bizarre arguments! I mean it. See WP:DEADHORSE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Mainstream news and generally accepted facts are not "bizarre". G&N and others need to be accepted here - and I mean that. Mark0880 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Your pathetic "arguments" may fly in Bible thumper county, here they do not fly at all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
ok time to cool down friend. ad homs are only for the ppl who have no further arguments. Accepted, peer reviewed and trusted sources are what we need on WP, not hearsay. Mark0880 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
You're the one casting aspersions upon Ehrman. And you have not presented any WP:SOURCE for your claims. I was just pointing out that your arguments are not done here. What you have produced till now are assertions by fiat and preaching to the choir. This does not fly inside an neutral encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

*The notion that Ehrman is a fringe hack is pushed almost entirely by a group dedicated to pushing exactly that notion. It is spurious and according to most serious scholars (including those with religious views, though obviously less so for the fundamentalists among them), the group's mission and arguments are something of a joke. To quote the archeologist Robert Cargill, they are "kind of like Josh McDowell’s books on Christian apologetics, except… well… actually it’s exactly like Josh McDowell’s apologetics, only online."

The biggest complaint reputable, mainstream scholars make about Ehrman is that Ehrman doesn't present anything novel in his books, instead re-phrasing and explaining the long-standing consensus among scholars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Tell me all about it. That's why we need to provide the vastly more researched works instead of controversial authors. Controversial authors need to show in footnotes or appendices, not in the main body of an article. Mark0880 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
You don't get it, do you?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Just curious guys... Does anyone have an opinion about FF Bruce or Meztger? Mark0880 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
We're supposed to cite relatively recent academic works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
MPants at work, yes, his trade books present the consensus of scholars by design. He made that no secret, he stated it upfront. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Listen, Mark0880, per WP:YESPOV the Geisler source may be cited as rendering the views of Moody, i.e. clearly attributed as Moody's opinion, not as objective historical fact. Anyway, Geisler does not trump Ehrman, thinking otherwise is preposterous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately, historical fact as stated in G&N, Bruce, et al are the consensus waaay before Moody was around. Cant just go around changing history to make money by tickling people's ears with fanciful stories and half-truths. Mark0880 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Assertion by fiat & preaching to the choir, again. You clearly don't learn anything from debates. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick observation here Tgeorgescu . Im thinking the phrases you're using dont mean what you think they mean. You're inappropriately using definitions incorrectly all over, too. Just sayin' Mark0880 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Assertion by fiat means that you want to be believed merely because you say it. Preaching to the choir means that it would be like you would be preaching to your own church members (we are certainly not from your church choir, if that's what you mean!) Didn't learn means that I have written the word "fiat" several times (this is the sixth time, to be sure) and you still persist in wanting to be believed merely because it is you who said something, instead of quoting WP:SOURCES (which in this case would have to be written by full professors from secular universities). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know the definitions. (Is it arrogant in here???) They're being used in an awkward way. FACT We're both claiming our sources are legitimate. The problem is that you've posted several articles that are poorly cited and use very controversial sources. That is a problem and Im trying to offer some assistance by suggesting we look at more widely accepted scholars who drew off other peer reviewed scholars and so on. The chain of custody is important and Im not seeing a strong one in these articles. That's it. And Moody is a publishing company, not an historical society. They print books for people, but dont write them. Mark0880 (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
Again, per WP:PAG Geisler is the underdog and Ehrman is the big gorilla. So Geisler does not trump Ehrman. Wallace also does not trump Ehrman, although Wallace is a much better choice than Geisler. Stating the Moody Publishers trumps Oxford University Press is extremely awkward. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
You are *really* grasping for straws here friend. All evidence shows Ehrman is a fringe organization, just trying to make money. Wallace and Ehrman are in agreement w/themselves but not with the last 2,000 years of historical evidence and mainstream peer reviewed authors. So no..... Theres nothing in policy or guidelines that slants this in your favor. You're actually digging yourself deep in debt every time you post something. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/the-work-of-bart-ehrman-gracepoint-church I suppose you get an A for effort though. Mark0880 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
In case you did not get it: that may fly among your church members, it does not fly inside Wikipedia (it's bizarre and not done). Also, per WP:RS, the publisher matters a lot. You are invited to read WP:RS again. But hear, hear: now the liberal is Wallace. Really? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

*Time for both of you to stop trying to convert the other... call on others to settle this. Perhaps an RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

sensing desperation in the posts here now. Mark0880 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
You should have sensed sarcasm. The thesis that Wallace would be a liberal is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Blueboar are you able to invite some objective parties to read the thread? Appreciate any assistance. Thank you Mark0880 (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880
"Everyone here is biased!" is a common shorthand for "I don't want to admit that I'm wrong!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
This thread is pretty messy. Lots of unsigned comments, inconsistent spacing, etc. that makes it hard to read. Also seems like a lot of back and forth between the same two editors. The best way to get others to opine is to offer a very neutral summary of e.g. Do/does [source(s)] justify including [text] into [article]? Otherwise this will go off into a more general discussion of to what extent, and for what purposes a Christian press is considered reliable -- and that's a fine conversation to have, but it will make it hard to actually resolve the dispute at hand. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
If the question is simply about the sources and text involved in this diff, then I would not say those sources alone justify the claim. If it were toned down and specifically attributed, then maybe. I'd have to see the other sources available. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok guys Tgeorgescu - I heard back from my Professor on Wallace and Wallace is an excellent source and should in essence agree with Geisler and Nix on the historicity topic. So I apologize for that error. I learned something today - Thank you!! Mark0880 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Mark0880

Reliability of sources on World News Media

Hello, as a relative newcomer on Wikipedia I seek advice on the reliability of sources on World_News_Media

I have disclosed a COI (I am an employee of the company in question), so I am limited to making suggestions and asking advice from the community on this matter. The response to me from the editors of the article has so far been muted, I have not really been addressed directly - and while I appreciate anyone wishing to avoid confrontation, my aim from the start has only been to engage in constructive and civil discussion about the content of the article in question.

I invite you to read the article's talk page to get a sense of the discussion so far: Talk:World_News_Media

You should also read the ongoing AFD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_News_Media

Many thanks, Scottrouse (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist

On Jared Taylor, many of the sources being used to support the contention he is a "white supremacist" (as a statement of fact) refer to claims made on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.

[1] [2]

Sources

  1. ^ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-renaissance
  2. ^ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jared-taylor

I have argued that their label only constitutes opinion, not fact, since they are a nonprofit group of attorneys, and attorneys make allegations; they do not decide on the outcome of cases. The SPLC's classification of Taylor as a "white supremacist" is not supported by any comparison of something he has said, written, or done in comparison to any provided definition for white supremacy. To take their word for it - considering the controversy over how they label many others - seems dubious to me.

I notice, also, that on the links I provided, they don't actually directly call him a white supremacist. They claim of his views that "most would describe [them] as crudely white supremacist," which would seem to be a clear cut indication that even they are acknowledging this is merely their opinion. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. Yes, Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, that's pretty clear and concurred on by numerous Reliable Sources. [10] [11] [12]
Man are the people on here disingenuous. Source #20 says absolutely nothing about Taylor being a white supremacist. Do you even bother to read the stuff you link? We're not discussing OTHER SOURCES, anyway, we are discussing the SPLC (and these other sources that make these claims are basing them on what the SPLC and its members say). 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. SPLC is a known WP:RS with a longstanding and well-deserved reputation for accuracy in their reporting on hate groups. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, they are? What's your source for this? Because this article says otherwise. Would you feel comfortable going to the pages of Maajid Nawaaz, who says he is filing a defamation suit against the SPLC for classifying him as an anti-Muslim extremist, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and saying they are anti-Muslim extremists? Because the totally reliable SPLC says they are. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


The SPLC source in question is not simply someone's unresearched opinion, it is a summary of Taylor's own words. One cannot have investigated the source with intellectual honesty and concluded that it is opinionated allegation. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of white supremacy: "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races." It is intellectually dishonest to think SPLC has accurately reflected Taylor's views based on Taylor's words. They have provided nothing to support that Taylor's views in any way fit the definition of white supremacy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, trying to describe the SPLC as "only constitutes opinion, not fact, since they are a nonprofit group of attorneys, and attorneys make allegations; they do not decide on the outcome of cases" tells us some important things:
  1. The commenter does not understand the full breadth of what the SPLC does, or understand that its online and periodical reporting are longstanding publications that have won awards for investigative and accurate journalism.
You do not seem to understand that they actually have a horrible reputation for being inaccurate and deceitful among non-leftists. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. The commenter does not understand, or is deliberately trying to confuse, wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliability for inclusion of verbage in an article and attempting to make some bizarre "until there's a court ruling saying someone is a white supremacist we can't say it" argument that is completely inconsistent with policy.
So wikipedia's policy is that it is OK to make statements about someone as though they are fact based on mere allegations from attorneys? Lawyers said so, therefore it must be true? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
So... yeah. SPLC are reliable. And yes, they are reliable for this purpose. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Disagree - the whole facade in the current definition of nationalism = alt right is ludicrous and nothing more than MSM advocacies and pundits, doesn't matter how many left leaning sources make the claim - the people they label deny it and so does the political opposition. It is a highly disputed claim, and as an encyclopedia, we have to be extremely cautious labeling BLPs "white supremacists" as it is a highly derogatory term. The only source that even comes close to quoting such terminology is NPR of the three mentioned - The Guardian - no; SPLC is questionable per Politico and The Atlantic. Also, be cautious of how that term is used EVERYWHERE ON WP as it could easily be construed as a violation of BLP policy. Atsme📞📧 17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian source "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist who runs the self-termed “race-realist” magazine American Renaissance," hard to see how that is not saying he is a white supremacist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian is far to center left; therefore, questionable and not a RS for quoting such derogatory claims. Search the archives and you'll see how it's considered. Atsme📞📧 18:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I filled my "alt-right/talk radio doublespeak" bingo card. ;) Morty C-137 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, too late - I already Bingo'd!! I've been using the policy card if you're interested. Atsme📞📧 19:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been seeing a lot of labels being added here and there lately, and I still am unsure where I stand on the question. However, I'd like to point to WP:Terrorist as a possible guideline for these issues. The general gist is that such labels will be attributed to the source at the most, not in Wikivoice. Arkon (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Atsme. Just for fun, could you explain what "left" or "right" has to do with whether the bloke is a White Supremecist? SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there back at ya, SPECIFICO. As much as it may take all the fun out of your question, could you be more specific because I'm not quite sure what statement you're referencing with regards to "left" or "right" having to do with white supremacy? Was it something I said? It's okay if you quote the statement. Atsme📞📧 19:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It was this one [13] that caught my neutral eye. BTW I have no problem attributing to an organization like SPLC or ADL that's respected for such judgments. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This. At minimum, the label must be attributed to SPLC. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow - so that's what you took away from my comment about the Guardian? smh I really do have better things to do with my time than spend it trying to explain policies that all editors should know, such as WP:BLP, and wasting my time answering questions that are conjectural interpretations of something I said. Keep in mind that editors are obligated to remove any contentious material about a living person that is (1) unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is a conjectural interpretation of a source; (3) relies on self-published sources, or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. I'd say The Guardian and SPLC fall right in line with #1 & #3 respectively, and unless the NPR has specifically called the guy a white supremacist, I'd be concerned about "conjectural interpretation". Atsme📞📧 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. See WP:BLPADMINS.

Good point. But, this isn’t a general value-laden label like cult, bigot or racist. It’s a specific ideology. Although, one could argue for attribution. Objective3000 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much every reliable source available uses the term. Do we have to go through and laundry-list them? That's ridiculous and unencylopedic. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not MSM's job to be the judge and jury of what is or isn't racist or supremacy, especially considering any person who defends their race is considered a racist, and whether or not they're called racial supremacists depends on what news source you're reading. It's bullhonkey - if you attempt to cite such a derogatory claim to a questionable source, don't be surprised by the response of other GF editors. Atsme📞📧 18:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Extremely non-scientific response incoming: Your argument that "Pretty much every reliable source uses..." is rather unlikely. A quick and dirty and completely unreliable search of google news shows 5x the amount of articles without the term than with. I've been on the other side of this so I understand the frustration. Arkon (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. "quick and dirty google news search" has very little, if any, relation to sources that are WP:RS.
  2. The arguments from the IP and Atsme pretty much boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT or "I hate MSM so there" right-wingspeak. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Rubbish. Atsme pointed out two sources who feel that the SPLC has gotten a little free and easy drumming up their base.Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I really wish Morty C-137 would cite WP:BLP more often since it's policy and what we're talking about here is noncompliance with policy by using questionable sources to make a derogatory statement about a BLP. There is simply no good reason for doing so, whether an editor happens to agree with the statement or not. It violates one of our 3 core content policies and that is where the focus needs to be. The onus is on the editor who wants to include such a derogatory statement so instead of wasting everyone's time trying to argue for inclusion of a BLP violation, spend it citing policy that says it is compliant. Atsme📞📧 19:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate policy on this is WP: V, and WP: BLP, specifically WP: BLPSPS and WP: SPS. While the SPLC is considered an expert on hate groups and extremists, the documents on its web page are self published. Policy on self published sources is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis original). We can use SPLC's opinion if it is published in a independent reliable source, and then we still must attribute the statement to the SPLC. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This is incorrect, the SPLC isn't a "self-published source." Self-publishing generally refers to a single person's blog, website or self-published book; the SPLC is not a self-published source, but rather an editorial entity with identifiable editorial structure, fact-checking policies and standards, along with an identifiable history of corrections and retractions when mistakes are made (c.f. their apology to Ben Carson). Therefore, much like an opinion published on the American Enterprise Institute's website or by the Anti-Defamation League, its opinion can be directly cited as an opinion. That said, it's best practice anytime to use more independent reliable sources rather than simply directly citing opinions from interest groups. In the case of this article, there are plenty of reliable sources to be found citing those opinions, and they are cited. Other cites can include the ADL, which describes his ideology as "intellectualized white supremacy." [14] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not in line with policy, self published is explained fully in the note attached. If the SPLC is publishing things on it's website, the only people are reviewing it are the SPLC. From WP: SPS "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos: " the SPLC doesn't send it's content outside to be published, they are the very definition of a self published expert source. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
...umm, no. That's not what "self published", as a pejorative, means. It means, in pre-internet terms, some whacko with a mimeograph, or some more prosperous whacko with an account at a vanity publisher. Anmccaff (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
If you think policy is wrong feel free to try to change it. But I'm quoting policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
...(edit conflict)like the Devil quotes scripture, yeah. You appear not to understand what the words mean though, so you differ a little from Cloutie in that respect. Every news organization I know of has a similar arrangement, in the sense that work isn't generally vetted externally. Anmccaff (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC is not a news organization, and news organizations have their own section of policy for self published media, it's called WP: NEWSBLOG. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
News organizations employ fact-checkers and editors, and those are the "independent reviewers" we refer to. Similarly, the SPLC employs editors who review content, and as demonstrated, they fact-check, correct and retract mistakes. That is the definition of a reliable source. As WP:RS/SPS discusses, "self-publishing" in Wikipedia's context refers to blogs, newsletters, self-published books, etc. that are not reviewed for accuracy by anyone who isn't the author. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Content published by the SPLC is not "self-published" for Wikipedia purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You appear to be applying WP: NEWSBLOG, but that part of policy only applies to Newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations. From the SPLC's about us page "The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality." it is clear that they are not a newspaper, magazine, or other news organization, but an advocacy group. Internal reviews of an advocacy group have an inherent conflict of interest. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this all beside the point? You agree it should be attributed right? I think that's really the only question left on the table. Arkon (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Anmccaff and NBSB are correct: the SPLC is not a self-published source. The policy, WP:SPS, refers to self-published books (i.e., vanity presses), "personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs," etc. The SPLC does not fit this description. It is a longstanding, highly-respected organization, with a professional staff, that is frequently cited by academics and the press. Indeed, the SPLC has won multiple journalism awards. Neutralitytalk 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Click on the above link with the label "multiple journalism awards". It says "the Intelligence Report — the quarterly magazine published by the Southern Poverty Law Center and written by the authors of this blog -- has won an important award." So not only is this not evidence of multiple awards for splcenter.org, it's evidence that splcenter.org is a blog according to splcenter.org. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect on two counts. Please read links before commenting. First, as the link shows, SPLC has won a Utne Independent Press Award (2007) and two Society of Professional Journalists awards (2003, 2005). Additionally, the SPLC's senior fellow Mark Potok, prior to joining the SPLC "spent 20 years as an award-winning journalist at major newspapers, including USA Today, the Dallas Times Herald and The Miami Herald."
Second, a personal blog is different from a professional blog with editorial standards. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Whether or not a work is called a blog is, by itself, immaterial. Neutralitytalk 23:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect on four counts. Please read links and policies and Kyohyi's explanations before commenting. First, the link says what I quoted -- only Intelligence Report won an award, not the same as SPLC's website, which is the subject here (the Jared Taylor article is citing splcenter.org multiple times but Intelligence Report only once). Second, WP:NEWSBLOG does not override WP:BLPSPS, which is for both "personal and group blogs" and the only exception is for a blog by professional writers which is "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" -- but in this case there's no evidence of editorial control and no newspaper, and (except once) the writers are Anonymous (who?) or Heidi Beirich (who?) or Stephen Piggott (who?), and the words "editorial standards" are not there. Third, only one (out of seven) cites is to an article co-written by Potok, the one quoted as saying "Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face" etc. -- words that aren't in the cited article. Fourth, it was Neutrality who decided the so-called multiple journalism awards item is worth citing and Neutrality who claims it's credible, yet Neutrality says we should ignore what it says about being a blog. I'll concede, though, that although SPLC itself repeatedly calls splcenter.org/hatewatch blog, I didn't find the same clarity about other splcenter.org sections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC (like the Anti-Defamation League) is a very reliable source on topics relating to U.S. domestic extremism and hate groups. Both groups have a professional staff. The SPLC's publications, such as its quarterly Intelligence Report, have won multiple journalism awards. Often these sources are the only significant, in-depth accounts on radical groups in the United States. Both organizations are identified by scholars as key sources in books published by respected publishing houses, including a number of university presses. See, e.g. Chen 2006 (SPLC and ADL are authoritative sources for identifying domestic extremists and hate groups"); Hoffman 2006 (citing both SPLC and ADL, noting that the latter is "one of the most authoritative of the groups monitoring the militia phenomenon"); Perry 2001 (both SPLC and ADAL provide "an invaluable service for the public"); Neiwert 2013 ("the Southern Poverty Law Center ... remains the most assidous, detailed, and dependently factual of all the organizations that gather and publish information on the radical right in America"); Spitzer 2001 (SPLC is "a nationally respected organization devoted to tracking domestic terrorist and racist groups"). Neutralitytalk 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Works published in 2013, 2008, and 2001 do little to counteract the concerns raised at Politico and The Atlantic recently, though. Anmccaff (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no evidence that the work's widespread use by others has diminished. As to criticism of the group's work, it seems mostly isolated to a few cases. And, in any case, the fact that a source has been criticized does not make it unreliable. The BBC, Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, etc. have all been criticized, but that does not make them unreliable. Neutralitytalk 23:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
All you are describing is a self-published expert source. However policy states that we still don't use them for living people, if there contribution to that particular subject is notable it will be covered in independent sources.--Kyohyi (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Kyohyi: this is not a self-published source. Neutralitytalk 23:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality: Demonstrate independent reviewers (Independent of the SPLC) and I'll concede the point. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The New York Times does not use "independent reviewers" pre-publication — it relies on its in-house editors — and yet it is a reliable source. The SPLC is relied upon by scholars, experts, journalists, and so forth. Its use by others is a strong indication of reliability. Neutralitytalk 21:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, numerous RS describe him as a white supremacist, including ultra-reliable, very weighty sources like the Times Higher Education Supplement, which not only calls him a white supremacist, but identifies him as "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement. So a) the question of a weather the SLPC is a sufficient source for this is moot, since its not the only source, and b) some of y'all are disturbingly quick to jump on the "let's just whitewash this white supremacist's BLP cause altrighters are butthurt" bandwagon. Read up on him, look at his own writings and statements. He is a white supremacist, and many very high quality RS identify him as such. There are even peer-reviewed tertiary works like this, which says he's a "major force in white supremacist circles." There is literally nothing to discuss here. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What you don't seem to realize is that those other sources circle back around to the same sources - either SPLC or the ADL, both sources I consider to lack the impartiality to just trust them labeling someone in the absence of seeing their proof. I've looked at his writings and statements and nothing he has said falls under the definition of white supremacy. Every dictionary says they're wrong. That's what called my attention to the reliability of SPLC - the fact that calling him a white supremacist, through my independent research, is clearly inaccurate. When something isn't true, yet there are media sources saying it is, something doesn't add up. In going through the material, the SPLC is connected to the vast majority of situations where he is labeled this. If it isn't a source from their own website, it's an article either linking to their website or quoting Mark Potok from their organization. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
There is literally nothing to discuss here the question posed is Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist?, Jared Taylor being one instance. I'd say there is plenty to discuss. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
In that case, put me in the "yes, it's reliable" camp. If SPLC was the only source calling someone a white supremacist I would probably say we should attribute that to them rather than stating it as fact, but if (as in Taylor's case) there are numerous other RS that say the same thing then there is no issue. But seriously, where else has this come up? This is why we shouldn't (and generally don't) deal with open-ended "is x reliable" questions - it depends on the specific case, how the SPLC source is being used, and what other RS say about the same subject/person. In Taylor's case, it's fine to state that he's a supremacist and the SPLC is fine to use as a source (along with the other sources which have already been brought up here and on the article talk page). If there's are other articles where SPLC's reliability is an issue, then people should point out what those articles are. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Personally I think this is getting sidetracked. In my mind, the dispute isn't about sources, it's about labeling BLP's in Wikivoice as something...hateful? I don't know the best way to describe that, but see my reference to WP:Terrorist above. I believe it applies in this case, and have had to bow to it's guidance in the past (not SPLC related, FBI related actually). Arkon (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the SPLC is a reliable source to support the white supremacist description and is a common source used for this. When the SPLC reports it, it's usually not difficult to find other sources confirming it. —PaleoNeonate – 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attributed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. —PaleoNeonate – 02:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this discuss is derailing on "reliability". That's not the issue. I'll take various points that because they have editorial practices we expect of reliable sources, that SPLC is "reliable". But "reliable" does not equal "factual", only that information that we're going to take as fact related to BLPs should only come from reliable sources. Reliable sources can be biased, and can be biased on a case-by-case, so not everything published by an RS should be assumed to be a statement of fact. So the question becomes is the SPLC a non-biased source to call this person a white supremacist, and that answer should be clearly no, given that the SPLC is very much fighting against white supremacy among other ideological aspects. As such, we can use this label with attribution, but we can't leave it as bare fact in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Can SPLC be used as a source? Yes. Is citing it alone sufficient to label someone as a white supremacist in WP voice in their BLP? No, we need evidence that this is a preponderant characterization of the person found in the body RSs which discuss that person. We need to take into account WP:NPOV and not just WP:V, in particular when we consider including potentially libelous material in a BLP. Eperoton (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The SPLC is a reliable source for an attributed statement, like "According to the SPLC, Sławomir Biały is a white supremacist" (with a citation that directly supports this attributed statement). The question of whether to include this attributed statement is one of WP:WEIGHT, but I am inclined to think that weight would typically favor inclusion: the SPLC, as a policy thinktank that tracks and studies hate groups, is a high quality source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
So, let's agree that attribution is required and close this. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thumbsup.jpg Arkon (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
There's not even remotely a consensus around that silliness. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely would not say that attribution is always required - especially in cases like Taylor, where the SPLC is just one of many eminently reliable sources that apply the "supremacist" label. Each case should be weighed separately. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to blindly accept the SPLC as reliable. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

  • "How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?". The Atlantic.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to conclude this (free ranging and overreaching) discussion about the SPLC with the consensus that material from this source used in BLPs should be attributed to the SPLC as this not only clarifies wikivoice issues but also transfers notability from the SPLC to the subject being discussed - as is the case with Jared Taylor. In the case of the lede of his article, however it is less relevant to make this attribution as numerous sources characterize him in this way; many of the sources interchangeably using the words white supremacist and white nationalist in the same article, inspite of efforts by those invested in those terms to distinguish between them. I notice a POV/neutrality tag has just been added to this page, presumably as a result of this discussion, in which the person who tagged the article is involved. Since this discussion seems to be free from the confines of any particular focus perhaps we could also add what the person who tagged it feels needs to be done before it can be removed to the list of topics. Edaham (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Guy Macon, did you by chance see the BLP made subject of this discussion? I couldn't believe my eyes or what I was reading. The BLP violations were so blatant, and when I removed them, my edits were reverted. It appears the page may need to be locked down as it is not much more than an attack page with the overuse of SPL for practically every defamatory statement. I think it's critical and needs administrator attention. Atsme📞📧 02:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, and I have no intention of doing so. If there is a BLP problem, post it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If there is a problem with editor disruption, post it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where we only discuss whether sources are reliable.
I also challenge the claim that there is a consensus to use the SPLC as a reference in BLPs, even if attributed. As the references I posted above clearly show, the SPLC is not a reliable source in any situation where a claim is only found at the SPLC website or another source that quotes the SPLC. If there exists another reliable source for the claim, use that source instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw your tagging of the article, removal of consensus material, subsequent edit warring and threat of ANI in your edit summary. You might want to browse the talk page at that article. Edaham (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Atsme: I replied on my talk page, but I think others who are involved here would benefit from this too: you appear to be laboring under a misperception that labelling Taylor a "white supremacist" rests only on sourcing to the SPLC. But nothing could be further from the truth. I spent about 10 minutes just now and found a number of high-quality RS in which he is variously described as "a white supremacist/seperatist," a "Virignia White Supremacist," a "major force in white supremacist circles," "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement, and "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist". So no, not a BLP vio, but rather the faithful reporting of a fact that is supported by numerous high-quality RS. Your edit is WP:FALSEBALANCE at best, and a blatant, POV whitewash at worst. Please bring yourself up to speed on the article's talk page and look at the RS before jumping in with a wholesale rewrite like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Quick addition: this is someone that the New York Times has described as "long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists." Did those of you throwing a hissy fit in this... person's defense look at any RS at all before crying BLP? It's pretty embarrassing (for you guys, if not for the project) that we are even having this conversation... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I lost any faith in this list when I saw a blog (Popehat, really?) on that lengthy and misrepresented list. Then I looked deeper and counted up the number of opinion columns. Looks like what you have is a meaningless Gish Gallop there. Morty C-137 (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Explain in what way the Atlantic is an unreliable source. Then provide a single shred of evidence that Maajid Nawaz is an "Anti-Muslim Extremist"[16] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to toss my two cents in this debate and note that I pretty much agree with Morty C-137's assessment in that its just opinion pieces. Does the SPLC have an agenda? Obviously. Does that make the the SPLC unreliable? Not inherently, I'll argue. Though I would like to say I think the evidence we have here for Taylor being a white supremacist is quite clear. Saying the SPLC gives him the label might be UNDUE, but the label itself seems quite accurate as per reliable sources. This conversation seems to have gotten quite out of hand -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
READ WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and if you're still not convinced, read Charles Manson and Hitler. Show me where it states in the lead for the latter or former the opinions of what you are calling RS newspapers...and if any BLP deserved labeling, I'd say it had to be Manson (Hitler is not a BLP). Learn what it means to write in a dispassionate tone, neutral, etc. The SPL is an advocacy and as such is NOT a RS no matter how many times you assert that it is, it is not. The fact that editors have expressed such a passion to label this BLP is more concerning than the label itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - write like you're writing for an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Hanging labels to disparage and discredit people you hate doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. Atsme📞📧 04:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The above comment hit the nail on the head. Indy beetle, whether or not the claim is correct is irrelevant here. Please look at the top of this bpage and read the name of the noticeboard. The only questions are [1] Is the SPLC a reliable source (no, it printed claims about Maajid Nawaz without checking the facts, and refuses to retract now that those claims have been refuted, so we cannot trust it). Is there another source for the claim (yes, the New York Times, which does check facts and print retractions). End of discussion. Use the reliable source, and discard the unreliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Before trying to hang your hat on Mawaz, YOU might want to "check the facts", Guy Macon. His story doesn't exactly add up (link, just as valid as most of your previous dishonest gish gallop). And you might want to ACTUALLY check the SPLC coverage, versus posting a bunch of breathless-and-credulous opinion pieces and an interview piece that wasn't fact checked. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit. If you think Alternet is just as valid as The Atlantic as a source you need to find some other place to post your false accusations against a living person (Maajid Nawaz). They are not welcome here or anywhere else on anywhere on Wikipedia. No reliable sources label Maajid Nawaz is an "Anti-Muslim Extremist". The reason so many opinion pieces point this out is because it is such a widely held opinion. And it isn't just Right-wing sources that say so; the Huffington Post is hardly right-wing. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I've not seen one source so far that justifies labeling this guy a white supremacist in WP voice. NPOV policy is clear:

  • Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

BLP policy is clear: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Some of the sources used actually cite SPL; therefore, are not reliable so if editors are using those sources to label a BLP a white supremacist, you are throwing caution to the wind. Pay heed to policy and don't let your personal feelings get you blocked. Atsme📞📧 05:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. As has been repeatedly pointed out SPLC is only ONE of many sources which use this description. (The complaint than switched to "well, I don't own those other sources so it's not verifiable" which is of course nonsense). This is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
  2. Since it's not just SPLC, this does not need attribution.
  3. here's been a concerned effort over the past several months to poison the well at the SPLC article itself by piling in any and all criticisms that can be dredged from whatever corner of the internet one can trawl. The end purpose appears to be to then use that as an excuse to weasel articles like this and remove appropriate descriptions. This is both disruptive and WP:GAME.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, that's what the sources provided by Guy Macon are, corners of the internet... Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Also - Atsme: "I've not seen one source so far that justifies labeling this guy" - I don't know if you've "seen" such sources but the fact is that these were put right in front of you multiple times, so please drop the act. It's annoying and tendentious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The sad thing is he does have a point, we should say he has been called this, rather than he is. The user then spoils this by making it quite clear this is a pure care of "I dont like it". RS call him a white supremacist, end of story can we close this now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
My 2 cents: for a BLP, it is probably best to say "he's been called A, by X,Y,Z" - unless he's said he's an A or it is manifestly obvious he is A (which would require a preponderance of evidence - e.g. Anders Behring Breivik). SPLC by itself is biased (particularly recently), and it certainly should be attributed if it is a single source and also if it is one of a few (counting journalistic reports based on these labels is not always accurate). SPLC is definitely notable - if they list someone as A, it probably should be noted on the BLP page, with attribution to SPLC.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
As Volunteer Marek has ably pointed out, there is a concerted effort by hate groups and the extremist conservative/reactionary movements to poison the well and attack the SPLC over the past few years, and this is just more of that. The total lie being offered by the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd coming here in support of a known and almost universally acknowledged (at least by reliable sources) white supremacist, claiming that it's "only" the SPLC that notes Jared Taylor as a white supremacist when that couldn't be further from the truth, is an effort to game the system and nothing more. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It cuts both ways - previously the SPLC was used across the (95%+) of the political spectrum (even by some so called reactionaries). Some, but not all, of their labeling of late has become contentious (and the labels themselves have become "weaponized" - much more than the past - possibly since being termed as a supremacist has become more and more derogatory (in the past more of these people "wore the label with pride"), and they aren't as widely accepted as they were in the past. In any event - it is best to attribute this to them in a BLP if the LP doesn't state himself as such.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'd like to see Atsme, or one of the other Jared Taylor defenders, explain how this guy isn't a white supremacist. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Taylor defender, but I believe Taylor could claim that treating whites as a minority group as any other, and dismissing "white guilt" is not supremacist, but rather promoting equality for whites - in and of itself the poster campaign itself (even with the Nazi and Soviet dog whistles - which are mainly color/graphic allusions and are not explicit) is not a clear-cut supremacist message (it could definitely be construed as such, and as part of an ensemble of wider activities be evidence of such, but not by itself).Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) (fixed missing not)Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
And the KKK claim with similar (nonsense) arguments that they're not a white supremacist / racist organization, but wikipedia policy doesn't say we have to treat patent bullshit as if it had any basis in truth. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The poster campaign is not strong evidence (some of Taylor's words and deeds are much stronger, as is labeling of himself as such by groups of some repute). It's not as clear cut with Taylor, as he doesn't openly argue for white supremacy (and he actually believes that Asians are superior to whites intelligence wise). Taylor's position (as I understand it, perhaps wrongly!) is that he is standing up for "white rights" - just as other people are standing up for African Americans, Hispanics, etc. On the face of it, this is not a supremacist argument. With the KKK labeling is much easier, as they are/were actively advocating (per my understanding) for white supremacy over blacks, Jews, and various other groups (Irish, Catholics, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Well at least you're admitting you have no clue about Taylor's positions. His dodges are just WP:WEASEL words. If you read the quotations the SPLC compiled fully, it's crystal clear that he absolutely is in favor of white supremacism. The "I'm not a supremacist, I just want my race superior here and the other races to go live elsewhere" separatism thing is still white supremacism. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Too bad he never said that. He also has never said his race is superior. He is certainly racist, in a general sense, but that's not the same as being a white supremacist. By definition, all white supremacists are racist but not all racists are white supremacists. Taylor also frequently puts qualifiers on what he says, such as using the words, "on average." He contends that, on average, blacks are more violent and less intelligent than most other races. He uses this claim to argue against the claims of discrimination against blacks in employment and the criminal justice system being responsible for statistics showing they are less represented in certain professions and get arrested more. He also has never advocated for sending anyone elsewhere. He is anti-immigration, with the argument that diversity leads to conflict, but this again has nothing to do with white supremacy, as it is defined in any dictionary. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
His words and actions have been interpreted by others like the SPLC as being a white supremastic, but that does not necessarily mean that he himself is a white supremacist, particularly given that it has a "flexible" definition depending on who writes about it. That's the whole issue with things like labels like "white supremacist" is that they are not clear objective bounds that provide neat and clean classifications of people, but attempt to place people into catagories that could only objectively be determined by reading the person's thoughts - which is impossible to do - so we're stuck with interpreting actions and behavior as a sign. Add that in this context, the "white supremacist" label is being used by the sources as a badge of shame, purposely making it contentious, and that simply means that we shouldn't assume that it is fact and just rely on using in-source attribution to state who is calling him that label, as per BLP/NPOV. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Bullshit and WP:WEASEL words. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No, it's part of being a neutral work. Assigning inline attribution to contentious labels (which requires only a few extra words) does zero harm from our stance, while leaving them as bare statements of facts can be potentially harmful to the BLP and to WP should the BLP seek action against stuff. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The KKK has identified itself as a social club, community service organization, and other such. The leaders of such organizations rarely stand up and give a Cornerstone_Speech. Which is why we rely on an organization like the SPLC, which digs more deeply, to add the term White Supremacist to the article. But, as Masem says, that calls for in-source attribution. Objective3000 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Unfortunately, that is begging the question. The Politico and The Atlantic articles referred to multiple times above question whether SPLC is always digging deeply, and suggest it is sometimes shooting from the hip. That's a real question about its "reliability" in the day-to-day, common sense. Anmccaff (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The modern KKK groups made life for us easier in that they choose to use the same name (and claiming some historical continuity) used by previous incarnations of the Klan which lynched black people and did various other things. The positions (when the rather amorphous modern movement is visible) are more clear cut. Morty C-137 - I think it is best to separate what you think about this man (and what many of us may agree to), and how it is best to describe him in Wiki's voice given BLP policy and the label being contentious. Attributing the label is best here - as this isn't an "open and shut, slam dunk" label on the face of it - it requires connecting some dots (which the SPLC, ADL, and others - have done).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
This right here. A lot of these issues that involve BLP and labels like "white supremacist" are from editors that seem to feel strongly that these labels must apply (and counter, there's editors that want to rid these labels for similar reasons). Inclusion of the labels should be driven by UNDUE/WEIGHT validation from NPOV - so here, more than enough sources to support this label - but as editors we can't allow personal feelings for how strongly a label must apply to ignore the principles of BLP/NPOV which is simply to attribute labels to sources. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
He's a white supremacist. There is widespread agreement in this wording among Reliable Sources, nevermind the extremist hate wing's hard-on for slandering the SPLC in the past few years. There is no BLP violation in repeating the wording that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree on. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Well said. This is someone who numerous high quality RS don't just call a white supremacist, but actually single out as "one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists", stating that as fact and without needing to attribute it to anyone. More sources here. Seriously seems like some of you are not reading (or just choosing to ignore) what RS say about Taylor. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No. it isn't well said at all. it's partisan garbage. Are you seriously claiming that the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on? If this were in some serious forum, that'd border on actionable. Anmccaff (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth Anmccaff, I didn't say any of what you're suggesting there. And that Atlantic piece is an op-ed, the NYT link I just gave you is a straightforward news story. One of those things is a RS for facts, the other is not. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course you did. You read those words by Morty C-137, and you responded to them with "well said." You adopted those words with that. Henceforth, a noticeable number of wikipedians are going to immediately think "Oh yeah, Fyddlestix, he's the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC", because that's what you essentially agreed with there. Maybe it'll become a kind of Homeric epithet; you know, "Dawn" is "rosy-fingered"; "Fyddlestix" is "the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC." Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty pointless and unproductive tangent to go off on... Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Per below, Anmccaff is pretty rudely and dishonestly misrepresenting the overall coverage of The Atlantic, and her false accusation trying to put words in others' mouths here is just beyond the pale. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, Morty C-137. You made a remark, which, in context, was either a remark on the sources being discussed here -like, say, Politico and the Atlantic, or was merely partisan drivel. So, if you want to withdraw the implications about the sources actually being discussed, and say "oh, my, no. I didn't mean Atlantic and Politico and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, I meant...." go ahead, and then "the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC." can apply for a new epithet. In the mean time, though, you are neither clarifying yourself, nor withdrawing what looks, as I've said, like partisan drivel. Anmccaff (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Still false accusations, still 100% misrepresentation and a really insulting attempt to stick words in my (and Fyddlestix's) mouth. Just because you stuck quotes around a couple words while inserting your own BS doesn't make your false claims my words. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't expect that newspapers will provide attribution for why they call a person something; as long as they aren't accusing them of some type of crime without evidence, they are free to drop whatever labels they want. We (en.wiki) are better than that as we are an encyclopedia, and one that tries to remain neutral. Providing attribution to a claim otherwise made across the board that can otherwise never be objectively proven does no harm and makes us more neutral. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Uggh. Messed up threading above. I do find it noteworthy that The Guardian refers to Taylor as a white supremacist without any sort of attribution. I'm less convinced by the other sources that have been suggested (e.g., that Taylor is alt-right, and the alt-right includes white supremacist views). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused by this comment - Taylor self-identifies as alt-right and is regularly referred to as one of its leaders by everyone from the NYT to Fox News, so I'm not sure how much doubt there could be about that. And we already have numerous RS saying he's white supremacist is plain English, many of them without parsing that through "alt-right," or even mentioning alt-right (see above, and the Taylor article's talk page for examples). Fyddlestix (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
alt-right might include white supremacist, but not all alt-rights are white supremacist. Regarding labeling - it would be more convincing if he were labelled as "white supremacist" by right leaning outlets (fox, WSJ, National Review, etc. etc.) than center-left of left leaning outlets. (and coversely - for Islamist / Far-Left figures - labeling them is easier when they are so labelled by left leaning outlets - the Guardian (or to a lesser degree NYT which is more centrist) is very convincing for these, but much less so for the specific labeling of far-right).Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah basically. If there are lots of sources really using the supremacist label, then it would be uncontentious. But at the moment, The Guardian's usage seems like an aberration that may be the result of political leanings rather than fine parsing of the far right's political views. Just my tuppence. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Who said it was just the Guardian? Seems like maybe you missed the other sources that have already been provided (multiple times...) Fyddlestix (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did miss those. I'm fine with the current sourcing, but I suggest a reset of the discussion, as it has been presented in a confusing way to make it seem like the sources are much weaker than they actually are. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
No argument there! Probably a factor of the report being filed by an IP with an axe to grind (who was already kid of disrupting the article talk page before bringing the issue up here). Fyddlestix (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Atlantic calls American Renaissance white supremacist. It also calls the Council of Conservative Citizens white supremacist (Taylor is a spokesperson for the CCC). Doug Weller talk 15:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
This, really. The repeated dishonesty of the pro-Taylor arguments - between bouts of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which appear more and more each time just designed to try to irritate and provoke - is just amazing. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Mind your manners, Morty C-137. I consider being associated with any "pro-Taylor" labeling a PA per casting aspersions. I am pro WIKI POLICY, nothing more. Atsme📞📧 16:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, there were a couple of sources at the top of the discussion at this noticeboard for calling Taylor a white supremacist. One of those was SPLC, one was the Guardian, one was NPR, and one was New York Magazine. If there are other sources, why not produce a clear list of them, ideally in another subsection, so that you might more effectively communicate this to editors who "DIDNTHEARTHAT". We didn't hear it because this is a noticeboard, and outside uninvolved editors aren't particularly interested in wading through masses of petty squabbling. Say what sources you want us to evaluate and what you want to say. See the edit notice for how this process is supposed to work. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The original post (which is now shown to be 100% fraudulent) claimed "On Jared Taylor, many of the sources being used to support the contention he is a "white supremacist" (as a statement of fact) refer to claims made on the Southern Poverty Law Center website."
The claim is clearly false, but the IP inserted that false claim as a wedge attempt - sliming the SPLC, again, being a thing that has become very common out of the alt-right and talk radio/white supremacist circles. Numerous editors have posted refutations to this, but the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd just keep repeating that false statement. The very first comment after where I linked the sources for Guardian, NPR and NYMag was the IP launching the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It's actually important to keep in mind that in relationship to anything around "white supremacy", the SPLC may be reliable but they are certainly not unbiased or lack a conflict of interest -fighting against white supremacy is one of their reason they exist. It would be like having PETA be the determining factor of what is animal cruelty. Hence, asking if other sources that reference the SPLC to claim someone a white supremacist is completely fair to ask (and I would agree that those sources aren't "new" if they point back to the SPLC"). But there are other sources show that make the claim that do not mention the SPLC, and - at least at the surface - do not have conflict, so we have sources that do label has such, so the label can be used without question. Just that as a contentious label, it should just have inline attribution. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The question at issue is not whether Taylor is a white supremacist. That discussion belongs on his article talk page or BLPN.
The question (as indicated by the heading) is whether the Southern Poverty Law Center can be used as a source to label someone a white supremacist. It would be helpful if an admin could collapse the off-topic discussions, if that is allowed. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Misrepresentations again. The IP that brought this here was edit-warring on that page, trying to remove the citation entirely and (falsely) claiming that "all" reliable sources coverage led back to the SPLC coverage. As it turns out, the SPLC is one of an overwhelming majority of Reliable Sources that independently assess Taylor as a white supremacist. The rest of the pro-taylor argumentation has been a combination of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Accepting your edit-warring claim at face value, this is not the appropriate board to address that behavior. The question raised in the heading is legitimate and a number of good-faith editors are addressing it. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
See above. The claim that launched this discussion was fraudulent and therefore the filing was in bad faith, and I have no qualms saying that. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How is it "off topic" when the Taylor article is the only one that anyone has suggested this discussion applies to? If there are other articles that this discussion is relevant to please link them so that the reliability of the specific source can be evaluated in context. The instructions at the top of this page make it very clear that we don't hold abstract debates without looking at the editorial context/significance of the source being challenged. So far no one has presented any articles BUT Jared Taylor for us to discuss. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Morty C-137, I'm sure you believe everything you read from sources you believe are reliable...but an all-abandon attitude is not an acceptable style of editing for a BLP. I find great wisdom in the following quote by Benjamin Franklin: Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see. We're living in different times, and politics has become woven into a society as tightly as a breakfast with bacon and eggs. We have editors from different countries living under different governments, so it's expected that we're not all going to agree. We are left with WP POLICY to set the proper course. You may believe the ADL is the perfect unbiased organization its founder intended...unfortunately, that is not evidenced in some of its actions, or the fact that it actually promotes reverse discrimination under the guise of preventing it. The following Encyclopedia Britannica entry speaks volumes to what I'm saying, and provides what WP requires for a RS to have published opposing views; the latter of which makes the cited RS not reliable for a derogatory label, which supports my position. "Internationally, the ADL strongly supports Israel and seeks to counter the messages of individuals and groups that are critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip or supportive of the Palestinian cause. Those efforts have brought the ADL into conflict with Arab and Muslim groups, peace groups, and pro-Palestinian activists such as Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. The ADL’s detractors have accused it of abandoning its original civil rights mission and of equating legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism." Regardless of whether or not you agree, ADL is an advocacy, as is SPL which makes both unreliable for hanging derogatory labels on a BLP without inline text attribution. I cannot possibly make my position any more clear than what I've done here, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT actually applies to you and others who are opposing WP:PAGs and the supporting evidence I've provided. Expressing your passions and opinions as a WP editor is not dispassionate nor is it NPOV. Advocating for any advocacy is, in and of itself, noncompliant with NPOV, V, BLP which are core content policies. Doug Weller, I am disappointed in your use of guilt by association, and use of an article that clearly states (my bold underline): Along the way, the CCC has become the largest white-supremacist group in the nation, according to some observers. The Atlantic. It is important that we read the entire article in order to grasp the context. It is very disconcerting when I see editors take statements out of context and attribute them wrongly. The Atlantic stated: "The CCC is now, according to the SPLC, the nation’s largest white nationalist group." The article was actually focusing on Dylan Roof whom the CCC distanced themselves from, and includes statements from sources that disagree with the claims against CCC. Another source The Atlantic cites is ADL: "The Anti-Defamation League collects other examples of ties to hate groups and extremists." So we have the ADL and SPL being cited despite their being unreliable sources for use as "statements of fact" in a highly contentious BLP. Further, The Atlantic article has one sentence which, again, does not call Jared a white supremacist and clearly states: "...according to the white supremacist site American Renaissance..." - one sentence in the whole article that also cites ADL, SPL, WaPo does not a white supremacist make. Atsme📞📧 16:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Heck of a wall of text. Still boils down to the same nonsensical WP:IDONTLIKEIT by your laser focus on attacking the SPLC, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ignoring the mass of other sources. Morty C-137 (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Morty C-137. I find Astme's arguments more compelling than your curt dismissal of them. I also find the arguments of MASEM above to be compelling, and your dismissal of them as 'weasel words' is incorrect and disingenuous. You can keep screaming that everyone is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT but you seem to be the one who isn't listening. Sources based on the SPLC don't really count for the purposes of your argument, and it has been established above in this thread that there are few reliable sources that do not base their description of him as a white supremacist ultimately on the SPLC. In any case, with today's media constantly taking sides I don't support unattributed statements calling anyone a 'white supremacist' or similarly loaded terms (eg 'terrorist') unless we have widespread consensus among editors that it is, indeed, appropriate. I'm not seeing that here. We have a duty of care with BLPs not to misrepresent the truth, and in this case attributing the SPLC seems appropriate, as nearly all of the RS coverage referring to him as a white supremacist originates with the SPLC and they are far from an unbiased source. Attribute and move on. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 18:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The Atlantic doesn't call Taylor a white supremacist, it doesn't call him anything. It calls the organisations he leads or speaks for white supremacist, that's enough. And it is using the SPLC for the statement that the CCC is the largest white nationalist group, while at the same time, not citing any other source, says "Though the CCC is sometimes described as “thinly veiled” white supremacists or the like, that’s misleading—it makes little secret of its agenda." That's a clear statement that the CCC is white supremacist and is not dependent upon the SPLC as a source. It calls Taylors American Renaissance white supremacist, against not using any other organisation as a source. Are we really going to say Taylor is a white nationalist leading a white supremacist group? Doug Weller talk 19:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that isn't enough. You don't inherit notability or derogatory labels by association. SYNTH and conjecture don't work either. Hopefully the following will end it once and for all because it unequivocally supports what I've been saying:

It is noncompliant with BLP, NPOV and V to use a derogatory label in a BLP as a statement of fact in Wiki voice - no opinion is acceptable as statement of fact - and that's exactly what the lead in the subject BLP represents regardless of how it's sourced. The sources cited barely hold up for inline attribution, but the latter is debatable - labeling in WP voice is not. WP:PAG are quite clear (my bold underline for WP:LABEL quote): Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. As I've been saying all along...a contentious label written as a statement of fact in WP voice is non-compliant with BLP, NPOV, and V.

Next stop, BLP/N, I suppose. Atsme📞📧 19:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I'm gobsmacked at your claim that I'm using "guilt by association". Taylor isn't just "associated" with American Renaissance (magazine), he founded it. My point remains, the Atlantic did not use the SPLC as a source to call either the CCC or AmRen white supremacist. It isn't a matter of inheriting anything. He's a white supremacist, how we describe this in the article is a separate question and I don't think I've commented on that here. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You know, I think this is a sign...no, a portent, an augury, that it's time to stick a fork in this turkey.
I think I could sum up the valid conclusions as:
  • SPLC is still an RS. It should not be rejected out of hand.
  • It's a little less R an S than it useta be, so...
  • It's no longer good enough, alone, for extraordinary claims.
  • Many of its claims, and most of the ones raised here, are not extraordinary.
  • Most judgements and opinions should be ascribed, period/full stop.
  • Especially so where Jimbo's ricebowl is threatened.
  • Argue the other arguments somewhere else.


Whaddid I miss? Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You missed the fat lady's song, Anmccaff.
Doug Weller it breaks my heart that you would be gobsmacked by it, especially considering your conclusion is based on questionable sources but aside from all that, our PAGs dictate otherwise and you appear to be dismissing them in favor of IAR. The evidence shows that he is not a white supremacist - nationalist, yes but not according to today's definition of it which stems from more biased sources. Please read my words as they are intended literally. I'm no spring chicken, and I can assure you that during the transition of racial turmoil (the Kennedy administration which I supported with blood, sweat and tears) white supremacists were easily recognizable because they didn't hesitate to admit to it. Robert Byrd was one such individual - unequivocally. Can you provide such evidence for this guy, Jared? I have not seen it, yet and I'm still waiting. Regardless...none of that matters according to WP PAG. MOS specifically states that value-laden labels are to use in-text attribution. Why are you disputing that fact? If you want to change our PAGs, please...have at it and I will uphold the changes in the same manner I'm upholding our PAGs now. THAT. IS. WHO. I. AM. You know full well that I'm not an advocate of anything but WP PAGs (well...maybe my kids and grandkids but that's not a WP issue, and you can rest assured, I'll set their little arses down if they aren't following house rules). My primary concern is the quality of our articles and the integrity of the project, and you can go back as far as you want to, and you'll see I've stood fast in that department (to my detriment but I'm comfortable that I stood on the side of what was right without trying to right great wrongs, or label people I don't agree with or don't like) and quite frankly, I will continue to follow WP PAGs, so if editors are going to condemn me for that, go right ahead. I hope you will at least recognize that one quality about me as a WP editor because it covers everything I do on WP. Atsme📞📧 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, "how we describe this in the article is a separate question and I don't think I've commented on that here." In other words, I haven't actually argued that we should call him that in Wikipedia's voice. We normally say 'described as' and I'm happy with that, so now I'm commenting. Many white supremacists are experts at rebranding. I'll repeat what I wrote at this talk page: It's common knowledge that white supremacist organisations and individuals have been rebranding, some, eg David Duke, as long ago as the 80s. See for example [17] Mother Jones has an interesting analysis of this. The ADL's page on rebranding[18] specifically mentions Taylor calling him " the forerunner of the “suit and tie racists,” who couched their blatantly white supremacist ideologies in pseudo-scientific theories and seemingly inoffensive language." Nice quote, maybe we should use it. I'm serious about the idea that Rebranding, maybe Rebranding the Right or something like that, is probably now notable enough for an article. See also this article (which has a caption calling Taylor a white nationalist - we should say he's been described as both, although I'd argue that very few white nationalists don't believe that their "white race" is superior to the "black race"). I think one problem is too narrow a definition of "white supremacist" in our article, but that's another issue. Doug Weller talk 07:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Doug Weller I agree with you in that it shouldn't be in WP voice. In fact, Tryptofish nailed it with his suggestion. I think it is consistent with the way an encyclopedia should present a contentious label, and we aren't risking the integrity of the encyclopedia by leaning in any direction but the direction of facts. Atsme📞📧 22:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Having been pinged, and this being RSN, I want to make it very clear that I believe that the sourcing for him being a white nationalist and a white supremacist is not only reliable, but abundant. I've also expressed openness to some objections to the proposal that I made earlier, the one linked above. Nail-hitting notwithstanding, my views boil down to this: [19]. And what a wall of IDHT this entire RSN thread has devolved into. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems completely undisputed that he is a white nationalist; links such as Atsme's Daily Caller reference don't dispute this. I can think of no other description for what "race realist" is supposed to mean. The concerns about calling him a "white supremacist" seem to be entirely BLP based and not RS based; some reliable sources call him a white supremacist, even if the SPLC isn't considered reliable here. I see no further benefit from this discussion here, and recommend any changes to the lede section be discussed on the article's talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "White supremacist" is not a derogatory label. "Racist asshole" is. "White supremacist" is a descriptive label, identifying an individual who believes that white people are superior to other races. I would also hasten to point out that self-described "white advocates", "racialists" and "race realists" such as Taylor who champion the belief that race is tied intrinsically to ability also inevitably spend a great deal of time crowing about the "superior" accomplishments of the "white race". When one refuses to say "I'm the best," but then turns around and says "One's ability can be accurately measured by one's accomplishments, and no-one has accomplished as much as me," the suggestion that such a person is not claiming to be the best is highly spurious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • "White supremacist" is a value-laden label, which is what is at issue and which we are supposed to handle with care. Moreso today than, say, in the 1950s. Look at the sources for Taylor here, and many of them include that label as to then beg the question of the value of his statements, so that they do not have to consider what he says with any bit of credibility (this is the epidemic in modern media across the board; FOX started it but everyone's doing it now) Furthermore, we cannot be engaged in trying to say if his actions define the use of that label, that's OR. The fact that RSes frequently use the label is of no question, and per UNDUE must be included, but as long as its a value-laden label, it needs attribution. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
But WP is descriptive, not proscriptive. We should reflect what the RSes say, regardless of our feelings on the implications or motivations of those RSes. Plus, as I pointed out in my first sentence: "white supremacist" is a well-defined term, and whether or not it applies is a matter of fact, not opinion. There are many people who would not feel that being called a white supremacist was derogatory in any way, and many who actively apply the term to themselves. By taking it as a given that the term is a value judgement, one is implicitly adopting a political position we should take. Should WP then adopt the view that terms which are seen as more and more insulting, the further to the political left one moves, are insults? It clearly places WP to the political left to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello? Whistle britches, are you there? ❤️ I'm not going to intentionally say anything that offends my favorite prankster/template genius, (so here comes the proverbial)...BUT...you obviously haven't read my arguments which cite specific wording in MOS, BLP, NPOV and V. "You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts." ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan<---says it all. Repeating an opinion over and over again doesn't make it a fact (unless you're referencing Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals). Atsme📞📧 22:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: I'm here, and I'm not offended by anyone disagreeing with me. But given my initial comment in the thread, I'm more than happy to endorse the wisdom in that quote you provided. Even if "white supremacist" carried all the negative connotations in the world; without RSes arguing that he's not, there's no factual basis on which to dispute the label. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
MjolnirPants, ahhhh...music to my ears!! You're here! Ok...short and sweet, the reason behind my argument is unambiguous - WP:LABEL. Atsme📞📧 23:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know how far this logic can really be extended: "Conspiracy theorist", dictator ,"extremist" are used to describe individuals and groups on various Wikipedia entries, even though they have clear negative connotations. I think the current lede is fine, but something modeled on the language used in Willis Carto's entry might be a useful compromise: He described himself as Jeffersonian and populist, but was primarily known for his promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial" Nblund talk 16:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
While we are descriptive we also are fully aware of systematic biases in sources, and adjust our summation appropriately. This is easily done by simply adding inline atttribute so that we don't change the message that RSes present, pretty much like Nblund describes. We are not required by any policy to assume what an RS says must be taken without question as fact, and if we as editors recognize that RSes are presenting something subjectively, we should per NPOV present it as an attributable claim. (Aside, we really need to have a larger discussion to understand the state of the media today and how it affects writing about current events within the scope of BIAS, but that's a different discussion).
Key is that this works in the opposite direction too: we don't use "positive" value-laden terms without attribution either. We don't call Einstein a genius in a factual voice, just as we don't call da Vinci one of the best painters, Shakespeare as one of the greatest playwrights, etc. without adding language that indicates some type of attribution such as "generally considered". Morally, there'd be no issue, there are all great positive things to say about these people, but to stay with NPOV, we add the necessary language to reflect that others have made that, since you can't factually identify this. It's just that when we talk negative value-laden terms, it is very easy to fall into the human nature trap to want to call out people you might not like with such language, and think it appropriate because you have RS backing. That is not how NPOV works. We have RSes here that have enough weight to make sure that calling Taylor a "white supremacist" is fine, it just needs attribution, since that's something that can't be verified as a fact at any time (unless Taylor self-identifies). --MASEM (t) 16:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
While we are descriptive we also are fully aware of systematic biases in sources, and adjust our summation appropriately. Your argument rests upon the assumption that it's a clear an unambiguous fact that sources which call him a WS are all subject to a systemic bias. I don't think that's at all clear or unambiguous. In fact, I find the notion rather specious.
We are not required by any policy to assume what an RS says must be taken without question as fact Actually, we are required to present conclusions which are not in any real dispute as facts, see the third bullet point at WP:YESPOV. If there are RSes out there arguing that Taylor is not a white supremacist, then we may need to consider attribution. But if the preponderance of RSes agree that he's a WS, and no RSes argue that he's not, then we are required by policy to state as a fact that he is a WS.
We have RSes here that have enough weight to make sure that calling Taylor a "white supremacist" is fine, it just needs attribution, since that's something that can't be verified as a fact at any time (unless Taylor self-identifies). Now you're talking about second-guessing RSes based on our own views, which is tantamount to OR. I want to9 reiterate that "white supremacist" may have strong negative connotations, but it is, at it's root a factual judgement, not a value judgement. Again, if this is a contentious issue among the RSes then we absolutely should attribute it (and we should also present the counterarguments). But there doesn't seem to be any dispute among the RSes. As we've both agreed, WP is descriptive, so it should only reflect the views of the RSes. If even an overwhelming majority of our editors disagree with the RSes, then tough luck for us editors; we need to write stuff we don't believe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot to respond here that is well outside the scope here (we're already far outside) but as alluded, there is a need for a much larger discussion on the state of the media today and how that impacts our policies. I will state that nothing in policy requires us to accept RS as factual, only that facts that we state in WP's voice must come from RSes. Much of the discourse of late on en.wiki are from editors that insist we must stick to the walled garden of sources and cannot question what they present as fact, whereas other editors believe we need to be able to look beyond that for appropriate guidance for how to evaluate RSes in hot areas (eg such as Taylor here), even if we're barred from including those sources as non-RS, but at least be aware of larger pictures. I do think we are not as slavishly "descriptive" of RSes as you suggest, per language in NPOV and NOT, though this should be a core driver and not a track to get too far out of. This is all predicated on if there is a media bias that is present today that was not present at the time that our core policies were developed, and that's what needs a much larger discussion on how all this filters out. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You lost me. You think that there's a "media bias" against white supremacists? Or that Wikipedia has a "systematic bias" against white supremacy? And that we need to look outside the "walled garden" of reputable sources, so we can find ones that treat white supremacy more positively? Those things all sound sort of crazy when I type them, so presumably I'm misinterpreting your point. MastCell Talk 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not bias specifically against white supremancy but generally bias along the lines of left/right political and ideological areas of thought. It's also not about seeking sources for inclusion, but simply know that if the RSes are saying one thing, but evaluating the larger picture we know there's more to the story, to the make it clear that what the RSes say are claims that are part of a larger story, we just can't include the larger story. We should not be using the lack of any contrary views in RSes, that otherwise do clearly exist in other non-RS sources, as evidence to say "oh, there's no opposition to this conclusion, it must be fact". Instead per YESPOV , we simply acknowledge that the RSes have claimed this - we don't need to include any counterclaim or the like, we aren't breaking WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV/UNDUE at all, and describing implicitlly the larger situation without touching any non-RSes sources for reference. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that there is a larger picture to evaluate. We've discussed this before, and it's clear that you think there are problems with the way we rely exclusively on RSes, but just as with then, I'm not seeing a proposed solution, so I'm not sure what you would expect us to do other than "slavishly" follow the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The solution is simple: If there's a statement made by RSes that is clearly contested if we look at the big picture and not just what the RSes present, then we include that claim with inline attribution. We don't have to do anything else. We're still following the RSes. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
"Clearly contested" by whom? No reliable source appears to contest that statement. If the standard is "the article subject contests it," then I guess we have to inline-attribute "murderer" for anyone convicted of murder who proclaims their innocence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
No, we don't call them "murderer", we say they were "convicted of murder" (presuming this was a result of a criminal trial). Don't need attribution, just taking the "absoluteness" of the "murderer" statement out of the picture. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
So we are now back to the assertion that the contents of RSes need be judged by the standard of non-RSes. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that at all. There is a reason those "big picture" sources aren't considered RSes; they're unreliable. If they contest it, their protests cannot be trusted to have any merit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Which circles back to my point that we need to have to a larger discussion about the state of media today and if there truly is a bias that interferes with our content policies. If there is no bias and they are as objective as they were 10 years ago, your point stands; if there is a bias and they have lost objectivity, we need to look beyond them to understand what the objective stance should be presented. That's not a discussion for here; this I think has run its course. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was here, on this project, 10 years ago, and people made the same poorly-informed arguments about media bias back then. So you can rest assured that nothing has changed. Meanwhile, you've succeeded—by way of evasive verbosity—in convincing me that you're trying to "define down" white supremacists as if they're simply victims of media bias. Which is concerning, to put it mildly. MastCell Talk 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, sounds familiar. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
With the unfortunate events of Charlottesville over this weekend, however, it is clear that the media loves to play identity politics and want to try to group all that they can under these labels. It was formally a "white nationalist" rally (The description used most predominately in Google News) but everything from neo-Nazi, far-right, and white supremacist was used to try to group all the lead protesters involved. For example, here is a tweet from an MSNBC producer that shows the problem with labels in today's media environment perfectly: [20] in that all the areas on the bottom half of the triangle certainly share concepts that the true white supremacist issues (above the line) have, but just having issues in common does not make one a white supremacist. But, no , the media want to classify anyone that has the views on the bottom part of that image as being "white supremacist", since they can use that then to disparage the person they are speaking about and put doubt or dismissal to anything they say.
The media did not act this way during the previous administrations (particular during either Bush Sr. or Bush Jr.) but instead it is a result of many many factors, including the rise of conservative/right-leaning cable news, the rise of citizen bloggers and social media, and the collapse of the financial stability of the printed newspaper over the last 10 years. They are fighting to stay relevant.
And I want to stress, this is a situation across the board I'd fight against, regardless of which political side it is coming from. If there was a person being called out as a bleeding-heart liberal, I'd be asking for the exact same treatment of making sure that claim is attributed. My issue here is not about any one particular political ideology but all of them and how we present such labels neutrally across the board. The only problem is that with the current media which on average leans left, and our general dismissal of the more extreme right-leaning ones as RS (which is completely appropriate), we end up that we have to end up focusing on how right-leaning people are labeled, rather than other combinations. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Bleeding heart liberal is a redirect to Liberalism, which -given your equating of the term's offensiveness with "white supremacist"- strikes me as something you might want to get changed, post-haste. The issue is that there is a marked difference between white supremacy and white nationalism, as well as a marked difference between white supremacy and conservatism. WP is full of conservative (even extremely conservative) figures who aren't labelled white supremacist, because they don't form their public identity around white supremacist ideals the way Taylor does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I just redirected that to the section in Left-libertarianism (that redirect was created just in June this year and no apparent history before that point). But back to Taylor, the problem is that we and/or the media are using a type of duck test to label people with value-laden labels when the person identified has not self-stated; that chart from that Twitter, for example, givens a number of qualities that are not exclusive to white supremacy (or even the right) and claiming that someone that believes them is a white supremacist. Sometimes the duck test is right on the money, but sometimes it is wrong, and when it is wrong it is horribly wrong , in that there's implied libel at that point. I don't expect us to stop the media from using this type of approach, but we can mitigate any perceived harm by simply using clear assertions of attribution to who has applied that label, and at that point, it doesn't matter about the source's reliability. (eg back to this discussion's main point, there's zero issue with having the statement "SPLC considers Jared a white supremacists" regardless if the SPLC is reliable or not - attribution is there. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was actually looking for a good article to change that redirect to, and your choice is about the best one I can think of. Regarding the chart, I don't believe we're actually using the chart. As I mentioned much earlier on in my participation; the fact that Taylor implies in a way that brooks no alternate interpretation that whites are superior is functionally identical to Taylor directly stating it. The fact that Taylor doesn't admit that the label applies is merely evidence that yes, the term carries negative connotations (but it bears repeating that those connotations are due to the fact that society as a whole rejects the actual meaning of the term as immoral). May conspiracy theorists refuse to accept that they're conspiracy theorist. Many creationists refuse to accept the label (claiming they're one of the few honest scientists, instead). Whether or not a person claims a certain label is something that absolutely should be taken into account, but it by no means a binary test of the label's accuracy.

As for us using a duck test: That's why we have editors. It would be distinctly possible for all the editors who code to get together and write an AI that would produce articles. The reason we don't do that is because such an AI wouldn't be able to make judgements such as these. And consider the ultimate implications of criticizing that method: it means there will be cases where we can't state a well-documented, verifiable and absolutely true fact about a person because that fact would reflect negatively on them. It's, quite literally, bringing a (thus far, mostly fallacious) reductio ad absurdum argument against political correctness into reality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of what I could reply to these points that all stems on a starting assumption whether or not the media has lost some of its objectivity - and beyond the scope here. My stance is that because we cannot read people's minds, it is impossible to show a value-ladened label is absolutely true; we can extrapolate words and actions, but that's prone to error, and more prone depending on how you slice up the evidence. The more objective the media is, the less likely this error. That argument is long and complicated, so just not appropriate to get into here. But if one accepts that, then that's where deferring to inline attribution makes it so that we're not asking if that label is applied in error or not. The only time that we shouldn't do that and call a spade a spade is well after that person has died and we have historians and analysts that have come to this type of conclusion, since nothing is going to change that's already happened. What I do find odd, and by no means have I done anything close to an exhaustive search, is that articles on long-dead people that would readily be called such labels still seem to use appropriate in-line attribution language leading to that label, of the type of wording I am suggesting. It seems only on living persons that editors want to try to classify them absolutely with these labels (that is, absent the attribution language). --MASEM (t) 18:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
...it is impossible to show a value-ladened label is absolutely true; I agree wholeheartedly. But I don't think we need to be able to say something is absolutely true to state it in Wikivoice. Just that it's not contested in the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Masem, the problem with inline attribution is that it implies (falsely) that only the SPLC defines Taylor as a white supremacist. In reality, it's a very common descriptor among reliable sources (e.g. New York Times, Guardian, etc). So in this case, your suggestion misleadingly normalizes a white supremacist—and not for the first time, given the context supplied by Fiddlestix above. Whatever the intent, this isn't an acceptable pattern. MastCell Talk 19:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not appreciate the aspiration-casting here. As I said, I'd be doing the same if this was a left-aligned label like "bleeding heart liberal" being applied in the same manner.
The point still comes down to the fact what I suggest for including attribution does not certain an excessive amount of prose for any article of interest, nor meant to normalize/weaken the importance of that assertion to why the person is notable. In the case of Taylor, it seems reasonably find in the lede to state: "Taylor is widely considered to be a white supremacist." (which I fully agree is factually true- that's how he is widely considered) and then the body to have a statement like "The SPLC and several newspapers such as the New York Times, The Guardian, (and a few more) consider Taylor to be a white supremacist.(reflist here) Taylor has denied these claims." It takes but a few short words to separate a label from being in Wikivoice to assigning sufficient attribution. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
"The SPLC describes so-and-so as a white supremacist" doesn't imply most sources don't endorse that description. It implies the opposite to the extent the SPLC is an authority on white supremacism.
@MastCell: This is only your third comment in the discussion but the second where you've questioned Masem's motives. That's unacceptable. And your fundamental argument (that upholding BLP policy even for white supremacists is equivalent to supporting white supremacy) is weak and juvenile. D.Creish (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't have posted those links to related discussions, sorry to have stirred the pot. I do find it frustrating that this is basically a rehash of a debate we already had just under a year ago, and of similar debates that we've had over similar articles/blps. Every time the arguments (and the result) is the same, so after a while its hard not to ask why we keep going back to the well... Fyddlestix (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not questioning his motives; I have no idea what his motives are. I'm questioning his actions. He seems to consistently normalize people like David Duke and Jared Taylor by arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't describe them as white supremacists (although reliable sources do so), because reliable sources are categorically "left-leaning", or something. (The actual argument is a bit muddled, or at least I'm not totally following it). That suggests poor judgement as it relates to Wikipedia and site policy—regardless of his motivations, about which I have no idea. Finally, if you think that WP:BLP says that we can't describe white supremacists as "white supremacists", then I don't think you understand WP:BLP. MastCell Talk 20:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
My point has been and remains: nearly all labels are subjective terms if we do not have self-statement by the person. WP should never present a subjective term in its voice (across the board), and should use some type of attribution to keep en.wiki neutral. Period. The only reason that this argument keeps coming up with far-right people is because this is where there are a lot of problems at of late due to the current political climate, but I would be arguing fully the same if the situation was flipped. I have never said we can't describe them as white supremacists, just that that language should be attached to proper attribution. Its about injecting just a bit of middle-ground/conservative language so that we keep our distance and stay impartial in these types of articles. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I can accept that a person's self-identification is a binary test of the truth of that. We're not going to refer to black hip hop artists as "the N-word" simply because they frequently identify as such. We don't refer to Kent Hovind as a "doctor", despite him identifying as one. We do refer to Jeff Boss and Alex Jones as "conspiracy theorists", despite them disclaiming the label. People lie, and the most common subject for a person to lie about is themselves. While I'm okay with using self-identification as a rule to settle a close dispute about two related terms, I think it's possible the least important factor to consider. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
What I was trying to say is that when someone clearly and obviously self-identifies with the same label that they are being called by many sources, that's one of the times we don't have to worry about the label being subjective - it becomes objective, and we don't have to include attribution (though obviously sourcing to the self-statement better be present). Without that agreement in self-statement, the label should be considered subjective, and of course if one self-identifies against what they are broadly called out as, that should also be taken as subjective. Which simply means to use attribution to include either/both as needed, and use appropriate NPOV evaluation to determine what to include, as I'm trying to argue. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, I could get behind the "...is widely considered..." option. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the reason we keep having the disruption is because some editors simply refuse to add inline text attribution which gets the monkey off WP's back and puts it squarely on the source where it belongs - think maybe that's why we have WP:LABEL? I understand BLP very well, and I also understand COI (not of the $$ kind) in WP:REDFLAG which is policy. Quote the source, include inline attribution. Keep saying it in Wiki voice as fact, and you might as well fully protect the article. Atsme📞📧 20:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, attribution has its own problems. Even among very intelligent people, there is a widespread mistrust of institutions which are, to any objective view, trustworthy (such as the SPLC and mainstream news media). But with a more generic attribution like "...widely described as..." we get to attribute it without putting the "blame" for the label on a source that some readers will instinctively dismiss. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Although, probably why WP:WEASEL exists. Objective3000 (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to in-text attribution here in principle, but "is widely considered" probably undersells things. We still haven't found any examples of reliable sources that argue that Taylor is not a white nationalist or white supremacist. "Near-universally considered" seems too on-the-nose, and ultimately I think it's better to just be direct, but I think there are plenty of alternate ways to word the sentence.
Atsme I'd like to think I also understand BLP, at least a little. For what it's worth, I absolutely think you raise a valid concern, but I disagree that this is a contentious label. "Contentious label" doesn't just mean that the word has negative connotations - if that were the case, we couldn't call Hitler a dictator or refer to ISIL as a militant group without in-text attribution. To my mind, a "contentious label" is a term whose meaning is so hotly disputed that its use tends to obscure the truth rather than illuminate it. The word "terrorist", for instance, has been so widely misused that it is nearly meaningless. As a result, several major news organizations have largely stopped using it. The same isn't true for the term "white supremacist". It's certainly negative, but its definition and application are fairly clear. Nblund talk 22:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I would be equally onboard with "near universally considered" except that going that far would require an RS to support the "near universally" part. Of course, it's distinctly possible that such an RS exists. Also, I don't think "widely considered" is a weaselly phrase, as the implications it gives are, well, exactly true. Taylor absolutely is widely considered to be a white supremacists, including by many of his white supremacist followers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
"Widely considered" is definitely a fact, and my problem isn't that it's weaselly. It's more that it sounds like someone about to dispel a common misconception: e.g. "Pluto is widely considered to be a planet...(by charlatans and fools)". I proposed "is best known as...", but, incredibly, I couldn't solve the problem through the sheer force of my editorial judgement.
That's a good point regarding "near-universal". I doubt we'll find it: as with a lot of fringe viewpoints, Taylor is so thoroughly outside the mainstream that academic and journalistic coverage is mostly episodic. He makes the news periodically, but no one is writing review articles about him. Nblund talk 22:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
If someone is "widely considered" or "nearly universally considered" by reliable sources to be X, then Wikipedia should describe him as X. That is literally the bottom line of every content policy we have on this site. We don't say the the Earth is "widely considered" to be round, nor that HIV is "nearly universally considered" to be the cause of AIDS. MastCell Talk 03:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

MastCell, would you be so kind as to provide your opinion about the following information: Falsity -- Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement, no matter how harmful, is not considered defamation. In addition, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker. So what are statements of opinion? I believe they are...I think it might be...The Times said it was...I read it in the Post...and so on. The way I see it, using inline text attribution when including a derogatory label presented as a statement of opinion (or fact) about a BLP is an exercise in caution, and should be encouraged - see WP:LABEL. On the other hand, if we publish a derogatory statement derived from multiple opinions and present them as statements of fact in WP voice, who will be held liable if it's not true - the source that expressed their opinion or the publisher that expressed a statement of fact? Seems pretty risky to have volunteer editors making judgement calls to determine if the opinions they are stating as fact are actually true and if not, it's better to keep it as an opinion and cite it to the source with inline text attribution. Your thoughts? Atsme📞📧 05:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you speak to someone knowledgeable about first-amendment law before using it as the basis for your argument here. I'm emphatically not such a person; I am not a lawyer, but these concerns strike me as misplaced from my layman's perspective. For one thing, a judgement of defamation against a public figure would require demonstration of "actual malice"—meaning that we acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In contrast, here we're actively searching for the best, most reputable sources and conveying their content—in other words, we're exercising diligence and actively searching for a true and accurate description, not acting with reckless disregard. Moreover, hedging that someone is "widely considered" a white supremacist is no more or less defamatory than simply saying that they are a white supremacist; both carry equal reputational harm, I would think. So, again, I'm a not a lawyer, but I don't see how dressing up the truth with fig leaves like "widely considered" or "according to the SPLC" affects legal exposure. The bottom line is that we look for the best, most reputable sources and convey their content; in this case, many such sources describe Taylor as a white supremacist; therefore, so should we. That's my view, anyway. MastCell Talk 16:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2: Electric Boogaloo

Yes, I've been hearing stories about how biased the MSM is for longer that Wikipedia's even been around. It's not new. Masem, have you considered the possibility that perhaps it's not the mainstream media that's changed, but its critics? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Was the MSM free from bias when they:
  • agreed women shouldn't have the right to vote
  • agreed there were communists under every bed
  • agreed separate was not only equal but better
  • agreed homosexuals would be a detriment to the military
You can argue policy doesn't allow us to deviate from MSM consensus but to claim the MSM reflects objective truth, free from bias, betrays an ignorance of history.
I agree with Masem: this conversation has wandered too far from the initial question to be productive. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
If you want to rewrite the existing Wikipedia policy on reliable sources go to WP:RS. If you want to throw out the existing policy on reliable sources go to somewhere non-Wikipedia.
More generally, every crank spouting nonsense who's ideas get described as nonsense by "the mainstream" thinks they're freakin' Gailleo. But 99% of them are really just nuts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The MSM then, and has ever since reflect the predominant views (note the use of the plural) among society. So yeah; they were without bias. Bias is not always a bad thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If I am not very much mistaken, there should be an academic discipline whose job it is to answer questions such as whether someone is a white supremacist or some other kind of human. As a layman and a foreigner myself, I have difficulties in finding the English name of that discipline (I suspected political science and political sociology, but that was not it). But I am pretty sure it is not law. The SPLC consists of lawyers, who are thus not experts at this sort of thing. If Person X is indeed a white supremacist, should there not be a better (academic) source for that classification than a group of amateurs? If there is not, why not? Maybe because the classification was an amateurish one and the professionals classify person X otherwise?

On top of their lack of credentials, they botched the classification of other people, such as Majid Naawaz, as described above by several users, and the SPLC show no inclination to correct that mistake. I'd say, quote them as a reliable source when it comes to laws, but nothing else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Heidi Beirich, who directs the SPLC's intelligence projects, has a Phd. in political science. I think others have already pointed to sociological sources that characterize Taylor as a white supremacist (example). Large-N Academic studies of white supremacist organizations frequently rely on the SPLC's work(example), it's widely accepted as a credible source by academics. There are examples of opinion pieces that criticize the SPLC's classifications of anti-muslim extremist and anti-LGBT groups, but I haven't seen anyone seriously sticking up for Jared Taylor. He's a pretty unambiguous case. Nblund talk 23:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
If we have sociological sources saying that, then, according to WP:RS, the SPLC as an inferior source is not needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC is a reliable source and other sources have repeated the description without qualification (for example "according to the SPLC he is a white supremacist.") I would comment more on how the term is used in the article, but that's actually a neutrality question. For these purposes, it is a sourced fact. TFD (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The SPLC is definitely reliable for identifying white supremacists. Not a single one of the contested attributions has been with respect to a white supremacist. With regard to its descriptions that have been contested, those can be handled by saying "SPLC said X but Atlantic said Y". Please note "reliable" doesn't mean "perfect". Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
And if there is no Atlantic or any others then I'd say there is no reason to mention the SPLC.Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's incorrect in Jared Taylor's case, but it's also important to remember that the SPLC is an advocacy group. For instance, the SPLC has sued and sometimes lost cases - in my opinion they are rather partial describing someone who they have sued and lost. I personally think their white supremacy lists are fairly spot-on, but they have also listed Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Somali ex-Muslim who underwent female-gential mutilation as a child) as "anti-Muslim extremist" which was just laughable. Lantos Foundation critized the SPLC for this [21]. --Pudeo (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • According to the SPLC, Hirsi Ali said, 'the West should “defeat” Islam and that “we are war with Islam.” The same year, she said that Islam was “the new fascism” and a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death”'. Also, "key parts of the story she told Dutch immigration authorities and the public there turned out to be false".[22] Unless you agree with those statements and think that Islamophobia does not exist, then the SPLC does not seem laughable. TFD (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      Using the SPLC as a source in a discussion about the reliability of the SPLC as a source is like saying "we know that the Bible is the true Word of God because the Bible says so". Read Begging the question. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      Here is the original source for the quotes in the first sentence: [23]. Notice how much clearer they are when the context is there. "There are Muslims who are passive, who don’t all follow the rules of Islam, but there’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it." When she says "Islam" she obviously does not mean "what the majority of Muslims believe in and practice". She means strict adherence, as practiced by extremists, including murder of apostates and unbelievers. The SPLC claims she spreads hate against Muslims, but that is disingenious. This is why the SPLC is not a reliable source: they do not ask themselves "what does she actually mean?" They just take snippets of a few words and sloppily and carelessly conclude evil things from them: quote mining.
      "key parts of the story she told Dutch immigration authorities and the public there turned out to be false" - this is another question altogether. As with Majid Naawaz and the dancer, the SPLC uses accusations that have nothing to do with the statement in question. This is non sequitur: Hirsi Ali is anti-Muslim because she did not tell the truth to immigration authorities? WTF? Another reason why the SPLC is not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
      • AS I guess you just figured out, the SPLC source explains why they considered her Islamophobic by providing quotes from things she said that have been published. You are now sugar-coating her actual words. Reason asked her if she meant "defeating radical Islam." "No," she replied. "Islam, period." Reason allowed her to walk that back by asking, "We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?" She replied, "I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars." So SPLC gets 100% on the truth-o-meter for summarizing her statements, and your reply is cherry-picking. TFD (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
        Providing cherry-picked quotes, removing the context that would enable people to infer what else she could have meant. The woman was literally crippled in the name of an ideology, and you demand she forgives that ideology or be branded a "hater".
        You obviously never heard of the fact that different people do not necessarily mean the same thing when they use the same word, especially if they come from different cultures. When she says "Islam, period." she obviously uses the same meaning of the word she used before, so this objection in no way detracts from what I said. It would have been easy for you to deduce that, but you chose not to.
        Again, I have to provide context you cut off: "And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes." Please. You behave like a creationist, creating your own reality by cutting away those parts of quotes that refute your opinion, allowing you to pretend the quote backs up your opinion - until someone looks up the original source. So, folks, please ignore TFD's and the SPLC's pre-selected snippets and read the whole original article.
        And of course you ignored the immigration authorities part. This is obviously a desperate effort by the SPLC to find something, anything, to throw at her, and they did not care about whether it was connected with the accusation in question. That is not how people behave who "get 100% on the truth-o-meter". You could not find a way to justify that part, and admitting that I am right, even on one item, is out of the question, so you were silent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Updating some earlier remarks: splcenter.org does not say that all of splcenter.org is a blog, but says repeatedly that splcenter.org/hatewatch is a blog. Type in splcenter.org/blog, you get redirected to splcenter.org/hatewatch. Type splcenter.org main page, you see a button for "HATEWATCH BLOG". Look at splcenter.org/hatewatch pages e.g. here here here here here here you see that the authors use the words "this blog". And others refer to it as a blog, e.g. Huffington Post and Daily Beast. So I believe that at least the three cites of splcenter.org/hatewatch will have to go (WP:BLPSPS does not have an exception for law firms). I'm waiting, though, to see whether this discussion concludes that the entire splcenter.org website is not a reliable source. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG is the applicable guideline, because the blog is clearly edited and published by the organization. It is not a personal blog, which is what SPS refers to. Again, this is no different than citing the blog of the American Enterprise Institute or the Brookings Institution - these are established organizations with responsible editorial policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
A blog is an information format, saying they are unreliable is like saying all tabloid format newspapers are unreliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not what the words "blog" and "tabloid" mean in this context. In this context a blog is a website that contains self-published online personal reflections and comments provided by the writer and a tabloid is a website associated with a newspaper (usually one with pages that are about one-half the size of a standard-sized newspaper page --- another use of the word "tabloid" but not necessarily what is meant in in this context) concentrating on sensational and lurid news. See WP:BLOGS and WP:NEWSBLOG for a more formal definition of how the word "blog" is typically used on the reliable sources noticeboard.
As for Peter Gulutzan's excellent question of whether the entire splcenter.org website is not a reliable source or just splcenter.org/hatewatch, the vast majority of examples of the SPLC labeling someone (sometimes well-deserved, sometimes very problematic) are at splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual, splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups, and splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology.
Another example of listings that are very problematic: Chick Publications, Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, MassResistance and Alamo Christian Foundation are listed at [ https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/active-hate-groups-2016 ] These groups hold political and religious views that many (including me) find distasteful, but are hardly "hate groups". --Guy Macon (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP:NEWSBLOG is not applicable since the SPLC is an advocacy organization not a news organization. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Kyohi: That seems like an overly literal reading. WP:SPS mentions blogs because weblogs (think wordpress) are often self-published sources - it's not a general prohibition on a particular web design format, that would be absurd. The SPLC is not "self-published" at all. It's an organization.
Guy Macon: I think "hate group" is a more specific designation that is particular to the SPLC, so it's a little different than the "white supremacist" designation. That said: FLDS is pretty racist, that fact just tends to get overshadowed by the forcible child marriage and polygamy. It's possible to point to edge cases where there could be real disagreement on whether a group is truly racist, but I don't think Taylor is one of those cases. Nblund talk 15:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Self-published is defined by a lack of independent reviewers. Who outside of the SPLC reviews the SPLC's findings and publishings? The reason we have independent reviewers is to control for conflicts of interest, and an advocacy organization (as opposed to a news organization) has an inherent COI with regards to it's own findings/publishings. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:SOURCE WP must "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The issues involved, therefore, depend upon 1. whether SPLC is fact-checking and/or accurate, and 2. whether their designations are facts. As to #1, numerous commentators criticize SPLC's fact-checking, thereby bringing its reputation into question; and as to #2, their group and individual designations are simply opinions and not facts. Editors should check their biases and be skeptical when such designations are used in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC is not a third party with respect to itself and it's designations. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
"Third-party" just means that the author isn't writing about themselves. SPLC is a third-party for Jared Taylor, but it would be a first-party a source on Southern Poverty Law Center.
I haven't seen a ton of criticism of their fact-checking per-se I think sources have criticized their definition of a "hate group" in specific cases - mostly related to anti-gay and anti-Muslim groups. Skepticism is always warranted, and I agree that there is a degree of subjectivity in defining a "white supremacist", but beyond some edge cases, the SPLC accepted as good source by journalists and academics. It's a good starting point, if used with caution.Nblund talk 16:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No, Third-party means independent of the subject, the SPLC isn't a third party with regards to hate analysis, and hate groups. That's their advocacy. It isn't Jared Taylor per se that the SPLC isn't a third party about, it's the designation of white supremacist, or hate groups, they aren't a third party to that. I consider the SPLC's publishing to be expert self-published sources, which means it's reliable in some contexts. However, BLP material is specifically excluded by that category. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Arguable, the SPLC is a third-party by a strict definition, the distinction is that they are certainly not independent in the area of hate crime (since they are self-servicing in their advocacy by issuing such statements towards specific people), which should be another factor in evaluating them as a source. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This sounds a bit like the argument that we can't rely on climatologists for climate change research. Having a stance isn't the same thing as having a legal, financial, or political stake in a subject. The Journal of Public Health aims to "promote the highest standards of public health internationally". Factcheck.org has a stated interest in "reducing the level of deception and confusion" in politics. These are goals, but they don't represent conflicts of interest, and you'll be hard pressed to find an expert in any topic who doesn't have any substantive beliefs about it. SPLC doesn't stand to gain financially, politically, or legally by calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist - I think you can certainly make a case that it has a bias, but that's a different topic. Nblund talk 16:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the BLP application of the subject. I'm perfectly fine with using such sources on non-blp subjects, I'm fine in using the SPLC in non-blp subjects. It's the hop to BLP subjects which prevents their use. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Nblund here. If we were to cite the SPLC for damaging biographical information about an extremist, that would be rather dubious. But citing them for "so-and-so is an extremist" strikes me as being rather reliable. I accept that the SPLC is not always correct, but contend unreservedly that they're as accurate as any other source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No source is always correct, but some are more frequently more correct than others, and some take pride in getting it correct. Saying the SPLC is "self-serving in their advocacy" is really odd; it's like suggesting that doctors write up a diagnosis to keep themselves in business. Whether the SPLC actually works like that, identifying racists and Nazists and neo-confederates and what not in order to stay in business is kind of besides the point; what matters is whether their identifications are generally accepted by reliable media, and they are. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Accepted or used? There is a difference. Personally, I would stick to the standard we've long had, ie: if something is an advocacy group for anything related to the subject in question then it is only reliable as a source for statements about itself. The web is making it far too easy for the construction of echo chambers inside walled gardens, eg: the Gamergate stuff, the Mises economics stuff etc and for some reason we're loosing the reins on much of this type of thing. Whatever you think of SPLC, people (media etc) latch on to it without questioning and thus another echo chamber is created. Lots of outfits mentioning the SPLC (or any other group) doesn't necessarily mean it is ok - it could be just trendy, just good at using its PR contacts/pushing it agenda etc. This is a generic comment - I not really interested in the are-they/aren't-they white supremacists and I actually think we should credit our readers with the ability to read between the lines of what we say rather than shove it down their throat. - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "reliable media" have little choice when they want a quick take on some right-wing figure or group, since the SPLC is pretty much the only game in town. That's why the "doctor" analogy is a poor one. There are numerous excellent cardiologists whose presence helps keep the potential rogue doctor from giving half the patients he sees an unnecessary pacemaker. Nothing of this kind exists in the hate-group-labeling business. 68.0.204.180 (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Call it opposition, deflectors...whatever, they stand in strong opposition to SPLC as evidenced by the following article by Real Clear Politics The Middlebury Melee...and there are scores more. Perhaps having been wrongfully labeled makes some people more aware of how such power in a single group can be far more destructive than helpful...and unless one studies each case page by page, incident by incident, how do we know for certain that a derogatory label is deserved - or is that even the responsibility of a WP editor? Quote or paraphrase the labeling of a BLP with in-line text attribution - instead of MOS, WP:LABEL should be made a policy incorporated into BLP. Then, if the RS is biased, or imperfect in some way, the source published it, and it's not WP stating it as fact. Atsme📞📧 01:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
A big part of the problem is what these sources don't list. If a source correctly lists hundreds of right-wing groups/websites/individuals with [pick your favorite pejorative label] yet fails to list a single left-wing group/source/site (I'm looking at you, Zimdar's list...) is it really right to add the label, even if attributed, to the pages of all of the listed groups?
I am of the opinion that any source that lists a large number of groups/websites/individuals and applies a pejorative label to them must have some sort of peer review and a published methodology for inclusion/exclusion. Perhaps we should have an RfC with that as the proposition? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you've got your facts wrong. Zimdar's List names quite a few left-leaning websites and sources (as does the SPLC, for that matter). Up to you whether that changes your opinion, of course. As for "peer review", I'm not sure what you think that would look like. And I say that as someone who's been involved in academic peer review for my entire professional life; I just don't see how to meaningfully apply that model here. MastCell Talk 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert#Excessive embedded external links. (this invitation was already posted at WP:ELN, but since the instructions of that noticeboard include "Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard", which happens to be the case, I thought it best to copy the invitation here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for calling Nyheter Idag xenophobic

Semaphorus says[24] that https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/framlingsfientliga-framat-pa-natet is not a valid source for calling Nyheter Idag xenophobic as the article mentions several xenophobic sites and not just Nyheter Idag. The headline says "Främlingsfientliga framåt på nätet" (Xenophobic forward online) and the article says "Pr-profilen Martin Borgs har sammanställt hur mycket artiklar från sajterna Avpixlat, Nyheter Idag och Fria Tider delades i samband med dubbelmordet på Ikea i Västerås förra veckan." (The PR profile Martin Borgs has compiled how many articles from the sites Avpixlat, Nyheter Idag and Fria Tider were shared in connection with the double kill at Ikea in Västerås last week.) As a bonus http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/hatsajter-tappar-i-sociala-medier/ mention it as a hate site "Hatsajter tappar i sociala medier" (Hate sites loses in social media). // Liftarn (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not unless it mentions Nyheter Idag.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It mentions them yes. "Avpixlat, Nyheter Idag och Fria Tider" (emphasis added). // Liftarn (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I should have been ore clear, we can only say what the source says, does it say they are Xenophobic or just "Shared by terrorists".Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The source (in my opinion at least) clearly states that Avpixlat, Nyheter Idag and Fria Tider are xenophobic. Semaphorus says that since the source also mentions two other it can't be used. // Liftarn (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Well I note that expressen actually seems to say it contains Xenophobic material, not that it is xenophobic.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a semantic difference, anyway it was the first source Semaphorus objected to. After checking it appears Semaphorus is a SPA or just very new. // Liftarn (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It may be Semantic, but then if I were to say "here on Wikipedia I say I hate cats" an RS could say (in all honesty) "Wikipedia contains material about hating cats", that would not mean Wikipedia is anti-cat.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
That one way of interpreting it. Anyway, the source used was SVT, not Expressen. // Liftarn (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, it may be a moot point as I have sound several sources calling a racist site[25][26][27][28][29] Are these enough to say that it is a racist site or should it be done with weasel words? // Liftarn (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well at least one of these is an opinion peice, so why does this person opinion matter, what makes it RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
That still leaves two. It may also be necessary to point out that the opinion piece refers to a report over racist websites that includes Avpixlat, Samtiden, Exponerat, Fria Tider, Nyheter Idag and Dispatch International. // Liftarn (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It leave two (one of which is an entertainment magazines headline) still to be verified as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
And body text. // Liftarn (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
One appears to have been written by an editor of the magazine it was published it, thus most likely fails RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Why would that matter? // Liftarn (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Because our RS polices require that material has editorial oversight. If an editor of a magazine (for example) published their own work in that magazine that implies there is not editorial oversight (and might even fail Self published). Can you provide the quote whee they Metro calls News Today racist, I am having trouble finding it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you failed to check the source. It's http://ng.se/artiklar/brakrecap-metro (it's about Metro, not from Metro). In the start of the article it says "Metros ägare låter sig intervjuas i den rasistiska tidningen Nyheter Idag" (Metro's owner lets himself be interviewed in the racist newspaper Nyheter Idag) a bit lower down it says "Samma dag publiceras en intervju med Mats Qviberg och Christen Ager-Hanssen på den “alternativa nyhetssajten” (rasistiska) Nyheter Idag." (The same day, an interview with Mats Qviberg and Christen Ager-Hanssen is published on the "alternative news" (racist) Nyheter Idag.) // Liftarn (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Well this is a problem with using none English language sources, it did not translate as that for me but as "The same day, an interview with Mats Qviberg and Christen Ager-Hanssen on the "Alternative News" (Racial) News is published today.". So can another Swedish language speaker confirm which is correct? But I would add that even if you are correct, this is hardly an in depth analysis (thus we have to attribute it). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, and calling something racist needs a bit moire then opp-edd peices and entertainment magazines.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence is perhaps easier to translate. The one where it clearly says "the racist newspaper Nyheter Idag". Also notice that the only source that can be called an "entertainment magazine" is Nöjesguiden. Another source is YLE that is a very respectable news source. // Liftarn (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

To quote the text that I posted in the Nyheter Idag talk page:

These are opinion pieces without any evidence or examples whatsoever. All that was stated in the articles was that LO had checked up to what degree people shared articles from sites that they considered racist. There was no study with proof for the claims.

Similarly, the Metro newspapter simply stated that their former owner was interviewed by Nyheter Idag, and offhandedly called it racist in conjunction, also without any proof whatsoever.

These are the very definition of unfounded accusations, and there is nothing remotely connected to weasel-words to simply state them as such.

It is however blatant slander to state racism as a fact without proof, and the times that I have read the newspaper, I have never noticed any indication that the journalists there hate dark-skinned people. In fact, a large part of Chang Frick's friends are immigrants, as he lives in one of the classified "particularly exposed areas" of Sweden, or so he has stated.

Or to put it another way, just because several people claim that the Earth is flat, or believe in creationism, this does not make them empirical facts without evidence, just empty ideological propaganda. David A (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on WP:V. We don't have to have "proof", we need to have reliable sources saying it is so. An in this case we have it. Good luck finding a reliable source saying the Earth is flat. // Liftarn (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, these are as far from empirical facts as it is possible to get. They are offhanded opinions from non-experts without any proof/examples whatsoever to back up the claims. You are engaging in character-assassination of anybody that you ideologically disagree with through extreme cherry-picked hyperbole. It is not an encyclopaedic fact-cherishing approach, to say the least. It is just an attempt to engage in onesided slanderous propaganda. David A (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I am fine with keeping the sources as long as it is stated that they are offering accusations, not empirical facts, whereas you apparently prefer to take Metro and the social-democratic organisation LO as gospel or axioms unto themselves. David A (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We have reliable sources saying that the site is a racist site. I understand that you don't like it, but on Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say, not your feelings. // Liftarn (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
No we have what you claim are RS, we are here to decide if they are. David has said (and I agree) that this needs attribution, not stated as a fact. Simply the sources are not (to my mind) good enough to make then outright statement it is racist (and I am not even sure that this is a wide spread or mainstream opinion). But as David has said he has no objection to inclusion as long as we have attribution I do not understand why you are not willing to acepot that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice to have some input from an uninvolved editor. Jusging from the many sources either calling them xenophobic or racist it appears to be a common view. As stated before I don't think it is a good idea to violate WP:ALLEGED just because feelings may be hurt. // Liftarn (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Nor the section two sections above it. Also I am an univolved editor.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll guess we'll just have to disagree on that one. // Liftarn (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The reasonable compromise solution is to include the unproven pure opinion sources by non-experts, but not to state them as fact, but as unverified accusations, as I think is Wikipedia's standard practice. David A (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have a look at WP:V and WP:ALLEGED you will find what actually is praxis. Or you can find some equally or more reliable sources saying it isn't a racist site. // Liftarn (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you cite the exact regulation text segments that state that we should always describe unverified offhanded opinions from non-experts, without any research whatsoever backing them up, as scientific facts or automatic truth?
Given your previous activity on Wikipedia, I sincerely doubt that you would be willing to include similar unnuanced exaggerated accusations about, for example, the Expo magazine, as a treasonous Communist pro-Islamist rag intent on undermining and destabilising western civilisation, if somebody had found such a reference, that was also written by severely slanted non-experts with a political agenda. David A (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I would be very surprised if you could produce a reliable source saying that. That view is only found on tinfoil hat forums and similar. See WP:FRINGE. // Liftarn (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
That is very much not the point, and you ignored my first question. David A (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Disagree on what?Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are uninvolved or not. // Liftarn (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Well as I had not edited the Nyheter Idag before you posted this that would make me uninvolved, I am not sure what else you think uninvolved might mean. What do you think it means?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

To reiterate my ignored question: Can you cite the exact regulation text segments that state that we should always describe unverified offhanded opinions from non-experts, without any research whatsoever backing them up, as scientific facts or automatic truth? David A (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It says in WP:V "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." and specifies "articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". You may think of "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.", but then you would first present such sources. // Liftarn (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
And how does any of that justify that you are presenting offhanded accusations without proof as absolute fact? David A (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion of what is The Truth™ does not matter to Wikipedia. What is needed is reliable sources and we have that. // Liftarn (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
What is the issue here is that you view offhanded casual remarks without any evidence as absolute Truth™, simply because it aligns with your political agenda, not that I do so. Does this constitute sufficient grounds for inclusion? Possibly, yes. Does it warrant presenting it as unquestionable fact, as you have done, rather than simply use the word "accused" instead? No, definitely not. David A (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, from what I can see, using the term "accused" is considered appropriate when wrongdoing is alleged but not proven, as is the case in this instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt David A (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That Nyheter Idag is a racist site is documented using reliable sources. It is thus verifiable. You statement that it is "unverified offhanded opinions from non-experts, without any research whatsoever backing them up" has no sources. Or as it says on WP:TRUTH "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.". If it was an article about a person not yet sentenced then "alleged" could be used, as it is now it's a word to avoid. // Liftarn (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, the articles in question only make offhanded claims without any reliable research or proof whatsoever backing them up. How can that possibly be classified as absolute truth? It does not make any sense in terms of encyclopaedic reliability. In addition, as far as I am aware, Nyheter Idag simply has a negative view of Islamism/Salafism, which is not remotely a race, it is an ideology. David A (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That is how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it there are other wiki projects that may be more to your liking. If a reliable source states something as a facts it can be used as a fact on Wikiepdia unless another reliable source disagrees. Again, just because you don't like it is no reason to remove and/or distort it. // Liftarn (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This is definitely not how Wikipedia or any other encyclopaedia works. You are inserting casual offhanded accusations in articles written by non-experts, as absolute fact. That does not remotely make any sense whatsoever, and is not the practice I have seen displayed in any criticism section.
I have been reasonable and attempted to compromise by keeping the references, and simply stating which organisation or newspaper that made a certain claim, but just because something is printed in a newstand magazine, this does not make it into absolutely verifiable fact, and the journalist in question completely unbiased and flawless in his or her expressed opinion. If you were quoting a scientific article that featured lots of proof of the claims, this would be a different issue, but your sources do not even feature the claim in question as their main topic. They were casually mentioned opinions.
Your sheer inflexibility regarding this issue has been absolutely staggering, and I am beginning to suspect that you are simply trying to troll me into sheer exasperation.
Outside evaluations would be highly appreciated. David A (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
If you wanted to work within Wikipedia what you would do is try to find some reliable sources oppsing the ones I have been giving. Instead you just edit war in your effort to whitewash it. I appreaciate that you actually try to not just remove them or misspresent them in other ways, but your insistance to violate MOS:ACCUSED is a bit tiresome. // Liftarn (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Whitewash how? I have kept all of the references, despite that I have never seen any article there that promotes racially motivated supremacism or hatred. I have simply disagreed with that you systematically attempt to present unproven opinion as fact. David A (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You have repeatedly tried to a) misrepresent and b) downplay them. Also what you have seen or not seen falls under WP:OR so it can't be used as a basis for the article. // Liftarn (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Just so we are clear here. These are the supposedly horrible changes that I have agreed to impose as a compromise solution. I improved upon the structure of the page to the standard format that I have repeatedly seen used elsewhere, with a proper criticism section, and changed the word "labelled" to "called". I am certain that this warrants going on and on about this discussion indefinitely. David A (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well this is going round in circles, and no one else seems interested. If others do not chime in this is going to have to close with no consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable use of primary source

Please comment on whether WP:PRIMARY content is appropriate as outlined at Talk:The Loudest Sound Ever Heard. I could be wrong and it's a good instance. Not watching here so if your comment is addressed, to me, please ping me. If you would rather respond there, feel free to. If this is an opportunity to discuss general appropriate use, feel free to do that here as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, WP:PRIMARY issues are more appropriate for WP:NPOVN, especially when it's over WP:DUE and WP:OR concerns, since the issue here isn't whether the source is reliable but how it's being used. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Important summary for the future

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#Important summary for the future. A further reliable sources issue is that an editor has cited a source which he claims supports his assertion but when requested to provide details of the relevant passage he has refused. Does this mean that the source can be treated as unreliable for the assertion? Would we be able to use the [where?] template and delete the content which relies on the source after a reasonable period? 78.145.17.41 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Blood Never Dried: A People's History of the British Empire by John Newsinger

Book: Newsinger, John (2013). The Blood never Dried: A People's History of the British Empire (2nd edition). London: Bookmark Pulications. ISBN 978 1 909026 29 2..

Potential to use in articles: British Empire, Clement Attlee, Malay Emergency, Mau Mau, Indian independence, Battle of Surabaya

I've read this book recently, which is highly critical of the British Empire and also of the UK Labour Party's role in maintaining it. Looking at the Wikipedia articles above, I would like to add some sentences sourced by the book. However, I'd like to check if it is an acceptable source first.

We have an article on the author: John Newsinger. He is a Marxist and thus has a point of view, but he is also a Professor of History at Bath Spa University and the book is referenced throughout. Looking at Google Scholar, Newsinger does not seem to have published in peer-reviewed journals for more than ten years.

Even if he has a Marxist viewpoint, I think it is still justifiable to include it. I cite this policy on biased or opinionated sources:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

I would always caveat my additions by stating that Newsinger has said X rather than simply asserting X.

Please let me know your thoughts. Epa101 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source. Here's a review. The problem with presenting new perspectives into articles is you need to establish their degree of acceptance in the literature. And that means reliance on third party sources rather than original ones. Such a source for example might say something like, "Most historians say x, but Newsinger's view y has gained acceptance." And if no recent writings mention his views on any of the articles you are editing, then there is no justification for including them. TFD (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the advice. Epa101 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Dailyxvideos.com

Hi, based on discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents I have started this topic. Problem was, if website for men (sport articles and porn) is reliable source for wikipedia. One look is when site contains porn, it cannot be used as a source. From the other side, it is not primary porn site but also sportnews aggregator, and only ONE known Slovak sport news provider in English language. So in my opinion for English version of wikipedia it is more usefull linking sources in English (not Slovak). In addition when you use link link this [dailyxvideos.com/michal-obrocnik-loan-sigma-olomouc/] nobody knows it´s porn site. Thanks for clarification. Svk_fan (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2017 (CET)

Um... a quick google search shows me multiple English language websites with news and stats for Slovakian sports ... so I really don't think we would ever need to use one that also has porn. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
some examples? When I found something, it´s not so detailed as needed. Svk_fan (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2017 (CET)
Given that wikipedia is sometimes used by kids, and one must look at the references to determine validity of info, I would oppose considering any site with porn an RS (not sure weather there is an official policy on this or not). Tornado chaser (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a content farm that is running foreign language articles through google translate and re-posting them. It's absolutely not a reliable source for anything. If a piece of news is so obscure that this is the only source you can find for it, it probably isn't notable enough to report anyway. It looks quite a bit like spam. Nblund talk 21:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. It is clearly an attempt to generate traffic. The news Items are actually in the same data structure as videos - though they are classified under a different porn genre (sport news). If you search for "sport" in the search bar (there is no actual way to navigate to the news other than searching or going into the sport news porn category) - or any other relevant search term for that matter - you get a mix of sport news and porn (including "Tennis orgy two guys and four ladies"). I don't see an editorial board mentioned anywhere. Content is translated items (or summaries) with links to the actual source. Even without taking into account the issues of linking to a porn site (e.g. minors being led their from Wiki - which would be a discussion with a source such as Playboy magazine) - this source fails just about everything required from a WP:RS.Icewhiz (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A 13th-Century Darwin? Tusi's Views on Evolution

It seems to me that the existing section in History of evolutionary thought may be in undue weight. Moreover, I question the supporting source's accuracy, I have the impression that it is a type of national puffery. Compare this article to another review of his work: umir.umac.mo/jspui/bitstream/123456789/15180/1/4511_0_2008%20JIE%20Offprint.pdf. He appears to be notable for his work on economics and ethics and although there are references to organisms and species these are in a context of economic cooperation. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding: The end of the same source could however still be used to adjust the weight of the existing article section, which should probably also be shortened... I'll continue to look at this when I have time, it's been on my TODO list for a while. We still have to deal with the grandiose claims of the article if we keep it as a source. Input and/or help welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 18:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Check123 video encyclopedia

There seems to have been a minor influx of external links to Check123 over the past few months [30]. I seem to vaguely remember the reliability of that site coming up for discussion previously, but can't find it right now. Basically crowdsourced, isn't it? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

International Mission Board (IMB) Global Research (peoplegroups.org)

Is peoplegroups.org a reliable source for population figures in article Bengalis? For example:

  • Malaysia: 500,000 Bengalis [31]
  • Myanmar: 347,000 Bengalis [32]
  • Oman: 155,000 Bengalis [33]
  • Singapore: 113,000 Bengalis [34]

Their FAQ says:

The Global Research Department (GRD) of the International Mission Board, SBC gathers and analyzes information collected through a global network of research coordinators. These coordinators obtain information from approximately 3,700 IMB field personnel, local evangelical partners, and others. Much of the information reflects primary research among people groups. In some instances, secondary sources are used.

My own feeling is that peoplegroups.org presents the same problems as discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Joshuaproject.net, and that it is preferable to show no data than to show questionable data. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

geopostcodes.com

See also: fr:Discussion Projet:Géographie § Utilisation de geopostcodes.com comme source

Hi,

Any idea about the reliability of this site which is often used on WP but which is rarely mentioned in reliable sources ?

Apokrif (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Highsnobiety

This website have been added in several articles lately, the website state that it's a blog, but it appears to have a team of people working for it, and it's appeared in print. Do this website counts as an reliable source or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

See at the top of the noticeboard, what article and what information is being sourced to this website? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It might also be helpful to get a proper translation of http://www.highsnobiety.com/imprint/ , because it looks like they may disclaim accuracy. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
You mean where "the author" reserves the right not to be held responsible for the completeness, correctness or quality of the information offered? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: @Ronz: @Orangemike: I didn't add a source to the website, this is my first time to post something here and I didn't read at the top of the noticeboard, so sorry for the confusion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
To properly assess if a site is reliable the information on what it will be used for and in what context is required. Some websites may be unreliable in general but be reliable for a specific use. Likewise some otherwise reliable websites might be unreliable in some cases. From a basic look (as Ronz and Orangemike point out above) it looks like the author is disclaiming any responsibility for the accuracy of the material. This indicates the site would be generally unreliable for almost all uses Wikipedia would want to use it for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: So you saying this website is unreliable for Wikipedia? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Without a specific example I cannot say it could never be used, but it is highly unlikely to ever be reliable for anything other than as a primary source on itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: An editor add this to the Luv Is Rage article, is it okay to have this source in the article or remove it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

World News Media

Link to article: World_News_Media

Background

The article should be about the company, but is instead a coatrack for the awards of one of the company's publications. As such, most of the sources are awards related (PR, and pieces fleshed out from press releases).

I list sources below:

Please feel free to read my bio for info on my COI, and thanks for your help. Scottrouse (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello Scottrouse -- Thank you for disclosing your professional position. WP has a position that the subject of an article does not inherit notability from its subsidiaries, customers, products, or shareholders. Likewise, but not explicitly mentioned, is that a press source does not gain notability from the topics of its articles. There is room in this world for many incarnations of a free press. The National Enquirer sells pictures and spicy headlines at the checkout counter. The New York Times sells double-checking of sources (and firing writers who don't comply). TechCrunch reprints every tech press release that comes across the transom. And World News Media gives out (some say, vanity) awards. Those awards, by their nature, are oft mentioned by the recipient of the award, an operator of an organization in a press-poor nation. You cannot blame them. But that should not translate to notability for WNM. It is, intentionally or not, gaming the WP system. Two of WNM's publications have been deleted for what appears to be a process of self-promotion: citing a WNM award mentioned in other press articles as an indication of their notability. There is one editor who incessantly adds text and awards to the WNM article, despite the lede that describes the vanity award process. Eventually, someone will AfD World News Media too. As far as I'm concerned WNM is an interesting WP article, but the news and awards from its subs are not. I would go out of my way to not to use them in any articles I edit. We'll see if others agree with me. Rhadow (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • According to the sources, the company's principal business is charging to give awards and the magazines it publishes are fig leaves for the awards in which winners may buy coverage. Multiple people who are probably connected with the company have tried to censor, dilute or repurpose the article (including creating all the now deleted articles) one assumes probably not because the article is inaccurate but because it is correct. BTW, it was AFD'd by Scottrouse and kept less than a week ago after a long discussion of the sources. Most recently there has been what can only be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation by Prebenlarsen on the talk page that a "group of journalists" are looking into the article. This user says they are not connected with the company but it is the only article they have ever edited. It was me that expanded the list of awards as the original article, which I did not create, lacked balance and only listed winners who had turned out to be crooks. It was necessary therefore to include a more balanced list of winners as obviously the majority of the companies that buy awards from the firm are not dishonest. The expansion was not promotional. The list also shows the variety of companies and types of awards made and particularly the geographical spread which is worldwide with many in the developing world. The characterisation of the sources given above is misleading, all sources used in the list are RS, most with their own articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This amounts to an attempt to rerun a recently-closed AfD, by a paid editor who would rather have a business directory type article on their company, or none at all. The company's business is charging for awards, and their other activities appear to be subservient to that purpose. The sources used are reliable and support that conclusion. Looking at the article history there appear to be a number of editors who have only contributed to WNM and related articles. Edwardx (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There is also a WP:FORUMSHOP issue here, as in addition to the AfD, Scottrouse has raised concerns at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_issues_for_entry_at_World_News_Media. Edwardx (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I should state for the avoidance of doubt that my involvement is singular in nature (I have of course had conversations at work about it, but all comments I make are very much my own). I cannot rule out other interested parties and cannot speak for them - but I do welcome additional discussion in what has become a dance around semantics for Edwardx and Philafrenzy (hence the shout-out on this noticeboard). The article is a poor one, on the basis that if you take out the critical sources you are left with something that looks promotional, and if you take out the award mentions, you are left with something that is unbalanced in the other direction. Please be aware (again for the avoidance of doubt), that this is not a direct criticism of the editors, but the evolution of the article has occurred in this way. I think that as Philafrenzy has suggested, the editors in question have reacted to undesirable edits to their work (understandable) and have attempted to fix the article following lengthy discussion, by trying to balance their article with award mentions and what limited information they can find that actually addresses the topic. And it hasn't worked. Perhaps that is good enough for a Wikipedia Administrator taking a glance at an AfD discussion, but it's not good enough for me. I'm not sure I'm the best person to have a stab at writing a neutral article given my COI, but equally, I don't think Edwardx or Philafrenzy are qualified either, given their treatment of this article and the articles of several other companies. Edwardx, if this were the place for a business directory type article, then sure, but as it's not, I think I'll go with none at all please. You started out with an unbalanced article, I appreciate Philafrenzy's attempts to help out, but ultimately you have an article which serves your opinion rather than producing a dispassionate Wikipedia entry. I'll forgive you both the wild conjecture in your above statements, I understand you have strong opinions on this. Scottrouse (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
There are at present insufficient reliable sources to write an accurate article about the company. TFD (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There are at present sufficient reliable sources to write an accurate article about the company. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If the sources could have been deemed insufficient, it would not have passed AfD. Edwardx (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Singersroom: question about Source for FAC

Hello everyone! I was wondering if articles from the website Singersroom would be viewed as acceptable for an article undergoing the FAC process. I have used this source for the GAN, but I have recently seen more sources coming under review during the FAC recently and I would like to check here. Since I plan on working on more music articles in the future, I was just curious about whether or not it would be appropriate to use this source. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For any specific use we would need to know what Singersroom article was being cited to support what Wikipedia article content. I can make a few very general suggestions, but these should not be treated as the last word.
As far as I can see, Singersroom.com shows little evidence of editorial oversight, so I would treat it more like a promotional vehicle than a news source. Singersroom might be good for artist interviews (that is, artist's opinions as stated in interviews they did for Singersroom). For news items, another site would be preferable. I would not use Singersoom for opinions and editorials unless the writer has credibility separate from the site (where the majority of the bylines credit "Singersroom" as the writer). / edg ☺ ☭ 16:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Amazing Lanka

Many topics surrounding Sri Lanka are sourced by this website, http://amazinglanka.com/wp/. This website seems to biased and lacks much in neutrality, example; http://amazinglanka.com/wp/kanniya-hot-water-wells/. Would this website count as reliable and be approved to use as reliable source? Xenani (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you read the site's self description [35] then you can see that it's a self-published website, which according to WP:SPS "are largely not acceptable as sources". You certainly couldn't use it for anything controversial or involving living people. If you want a more detailed answer you would have to identify the exact use are asking about, as described in the text below the big yellow banner when you edit this page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your issue about it being biased and lacking in neutrality I suggest you read WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, but even if this can't be used a reference it might be allowed as an external link. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

whowhatwhy.org

1. Source. WhoWhatWhy, specifically https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/

2. Article. Earle Cabell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3. Content. Documents declassified in 2017 show the Cabell was a CIA asset beginning in 1956.

Russ Baker's website WhoWhatWhy recently reported that John M. Newman found a four-page document (two cover sheets, a "Personality (201) File Request", and a signed secrecy agreement) in the latest dump of JFK materials that proves former Dallas mayor Earl Cabell was a "CIA asset". The clear implication is that Cabell was a spook that played a role in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The article attempts to lead the reader by stating that the 201 document is "a 'personality' file opened on actual or potential agents, assets, or informants", however, the CIA opened 201 files on nearly anyone in which they had some interest (e.g. my first two hits were for war criminals Shūmei Ōkawa [36] and Werner Best [37]). Regarding the secrecy agreement, we don't know why Cabell signed it but there is a good chance that it had something to do with having a brother who was a prominent CIA official. There is a place for primary source documents, but we shouldn't be cherry-picking them from the walled garden of conspiracy theorists.

Anyhow, this one is a no-brainer to me (i.e. Baker's book and/or website pushes the theories that the Bushes killed JFK and RFK, and perpetrated 911; Newman's three books claim the CIA covered-up Oswald's role in killing Kennedy), but the material keeps making its way into the article so I'm posting here for feedback. -Location (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Because war criminals are never CIA assets.... Abductive (reasoning) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
No, the source is not unreliable because of that. The source is unreliable because a) it ignores the mountains of evidence in the official findings of the JFK assassination and b) cherry-picks primary source documents then distorts what they actually mean in order to further one version of the CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. It is disingenuous to claim that WhoWhatWhy merely re-posted publicly available primary source material. -Location (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It's so refreshing to see some left-wing conspiracy theories, for a change. Yeah, no this is not reliable. Not even close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
From a cursory look:
I couldn't find any statement of their policies to ensure accuracy and correct errors...
Looking over a few other articles, I'm seeing rather shallow, biased reporting garbed in a presentation of investigative reporting.
I certainly wouldn't want it used for any BLP info, and it looks like there's too much fringe info and viewpoints from the publication to use without qualifying that information from it is likely fringe opinion. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Cabell is long dead. Anyway, the website in question has posted primary source material from the recently declassified government files. No doubt other sources are available that are more reputable. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_230&oldid=1088102765"