Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Liliputing.com blog as a reliable source?

It is a blog. Although it lists 4 contributors in addition to "editor" Brad Linder in the about page, in reality Brad Linder is essentially the only author in 2019 (1 exception), and there have been only 2 authors since February 2016.

I've been recently tempted to use it as a source, a couple times, to change a primary source to a secondary source, like magic; however, this seems wrong.

It was suggested to bring it up for discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:/e/_(operating_system)&diff=913365830&oldid=913365695

I'd appreciate other views. Below are more details. Thanks.

It has been used as a source for many articles in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

95 results

Sometimes it is called "blog" in Wikipedia References, sometimes not.

I believe it mostly re-words and repeats press releases, and blog posts by companies. An example, recently:

https://liliputing.com/2019/09/first-batch-of-purism-librem-5-linux-smartphones-ships-in-late-september.html#comments

versus

https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-shipping-announcement/

In the liliputing blog post above, comments seem to confirm this:

"Some Guy: ...Also, this article seems to have been posted before anything about this is on purism’s website."

"Brad Linder: I guess someone forgot to tell them that the embargo lifted at 11:00AM 🙂"

"Daily Deals" are almost indistinguishable from "articles." https://liliputing.com/category/deals

The about page calls Brad Linder editor; however, he is also the primary author, and the ONLY author for the last 8 months, with one exception by Lee Mathews on 8/26/2019.

It says, "Liliputing has been mentioned on hundreds of news, and technology web sites," and gives 11 examples. However, 1 - Computer World is a broken link, most are several years old, and 1 - Techmeme, "works by scraping news websites and blogs,..."

https://liliputing.com/about

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Brad+Linder+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

57 results

Lee Mathews https://liliputing.com/author/lee Last article 08/26/2019, but this is the first since 12/26/2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=Lee+Mathews+liliputing&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1

1 result

Lory Gil https://liliputing.com/author/lory Last article 02/05/2016

K. T. Bradford https://liliputing.com/author/ktbradford Last article 08/20/2014

James Diaz https://liliputing.com/author/cybergusa Last article 09/16/2011

The site warns: "Disclosure: Some links on this page are monetized by Skimlinks and Amazon's and eBay's affiliate programs."

It is heavily loaded with affiliate javascript from MANY different sources, as seen with noscript, etc.

-- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ugh. That site is basically a collection of advertisements. Guy (help!) 21:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Example of editing by readers:

Victor C: Brad, just letting you know, the WIN is mono. They had to remove the left speaker for the fan...

Brad Linder: Whoops! Fixing that now.

https://liliputing.com/2016/10/gpd-win-handheld-gaming-pc-quick-review.html , Reference 14 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPD_Win -- Yae4 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

While it's SPAMmy, It can certainly be used in a limited capacity. For instance on the Kodi (software) article, https://liliputing.com/2013/05/xbmc-running-in-linux-on-a-tv-box-with-an-amlogic-am8726-mx-chip-video.html is used to support that the software supports the AMLogic VPU chip. This is not an unreasonable use. Good to see that they make corrections to articles, which is good editorial oversight. It should not be used for anything other that plain, factual coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Making corrections after initially publishing inaccurate information, after readers point out the mistakes, is not "editorial oversight." Editorial oversight is having an editor, independent of the author, who catches mistakes before publishing. At this blog, the author is the editor, or vice versa. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Blogs do not generally update their posts. If there is the ability and will to recognize errors and omissions, that implies that there is some editorial oversight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I wanted to use infosec-handbook.eu (blog) as a source too, but couldn't because it doesn't meet the criteria. BTW, it also updates based on reader feedback (and has more active authors). If we use liliputing for that video, then we could use any blog with a fancy appearance and tons of advertisements as a way of including youtube videos. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What you were restricted in using that other website's content for is not up for discussion here.

We're not using the video itself, in the case I quoted, it's a specific discussion that is being used to support one fact. It is not generally reliable, as is the case with most other blogs. However, even blogs may be used under some circumstances. This is not a binary use vs. do not use situation, it's a large scale and judgment must be used to determine whether an entry can be used to support a fact.

Also, as stated above, it cannot be used to help determine if a topic meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The point was other blogs also do make corrections based on reader feeback, contrary to your claim.

Go down the list; Liliputing breaks most criteria: NO editorial oversight (aside from readers), self-published, blog, examples of making mistakes, sponsored content or primary purpose of showing you ads and getting you to click affiliate links. As I understand the process, if two of these discussions conclude it's a non-reliable source, then it goes on the "binary" list as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

If that "one fact" is really worthy of being included, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Liliputing

Is Liliputing (liliputing.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog? — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Liliputing)

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

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is general consensus that liliputing, as a self published source, should be considered generally not reliable. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Self-published source. I'll repeat what I originally wrote on 10 September: Liliputing a group blog. Its about page lists 5 staff members and occasional mentions in more reliable sources, which makes it a bit better than other group blogs of this size. However, the blog posts on this site tend to be short and promotionally toned, nowhere near the editorial quality of established blogs like Engadget (RSP entry). I don't think Liliputing is a good source for technology topics, and I definitely wouldn't count its articles toward a subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Advert-infested clickbait of no real merit and no evident quality assurance, much better sources exist. Guy (help!) 21:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Unreliable Anything but a factual statement is not reliable. Cannot be used for GNG or other reliability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Should not be used as a source. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. (bot brought me here) Not anywhere close to the level of Wired, ZDNet, or even krebsonsecurity(Brian Krebs).---Avatar317^(talk) 05:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable. . For Christmas' sake, I can blog that I am God, if anyone built a church for me, I'd instantly be an atheist. No verifiable facts, no studies, no external review, just a claim. Secondary sources are used for a reason, hopefully review and verification. I suggest either filing this in the circular file, file 86 or file 13, aka the bit bucket.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Just a blog - I mean, it's a nice blog, but it's not an RS for Wikipedia purposes - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Seems reliable We recognize BuzzFeed and, I think, TechCrunch as notionally reliable sources, so unless we've seen them to be wholly unreliable, I think the nom's proposal is a rational one. Basically, give them enough rope until they show us otherwise. This would be in keeping with WP:CON, which can change, including after this RfC closes. I'd also add that WP:RSP is just a guideline, it is not an exhaustive list of sources that can only be used on Wikipedia—either to establish WP:GNG or substantiate facts.--Doug Mehus T·C 02:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Discussion (Liliputing)

• I've created a new subsection for the RfC to meet the "brief and neutral" requirement for RfC statements. Yae4 originally created the RfC in Special:Diff/919418976, but the RfC statement was too long to be transcluded into the RfC category lists. Discussion on Liliputing originally started at Talk:/e/ (operating system), then sprawled to other pages including Talk:Kodi (software). According to Yae4, Liliputing was used in 95 articles on 9 September, but this count has since declined to 12 articles   after removals. Pinging previous commenters JzG and Walter Görlitz as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Liliputing. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times, once again

The Epoch Times is currently listed as a questionable source on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and usually described as a "falun-gong mouthpiece" in previous discussions. They have recently come under scrutiny for being a Trumpian partisan outlet as well, to the point where Facebook banned them from further advertising on their platform. At the moment they still have those same video ads running on YouTube, with a guy snapping his fingers to changing headlines, using alt-right bingo buzzwords like "mainstream media", "hidden agendas", or "Russia hoax" that could've just as well come from a Trump campaign spokesperson. I think it is time to reclassify this website in the same category as the The Daily Caller and the National Enquirer. --bender235 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times (RSP entry) is currently classified under "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", but we haven't had any noticeboard discussions since the August NBC News report "Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times". Deprecating The Epoch Times would require consensus in a formal request for comment, which this discussion could easily be converted into. — Newslinger talk 02:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not make it not RS as such, usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a typical "biased source" and as such can be used per policy with appropriate attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The Epoch Times isn't a matter of bias. It's a matter that it deliberately and calculatedly publishes misinformation. It should be deprecated. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bias doesn't make a source unusable, but intentionally misleading its readers does. The Facebook ban was for that sort of misinformation, which I feel is a decent reason to consider them unreliable - Facebook doesn't ban ads from news sources lightly (after all, doing so costs them money.) NBC News' coverage describes them as spreading conspiracy theories about Trump's political enemies, and the New York Times says the same thing, which would at the very least make them a WP:FRINGE source, not one we can really use for very much. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah this isn't just bias. In addition to more or less openly campaigning for Trump, they've got credulous reporting on Qanon and Pizzagate, as well as vaccine scaremongering, and viral cancer quackery. Reporting from NBC News, Buzzfeed make it pretty clear that they're pushing false or misleading viral content related to contemporary politics. This is exactly the sort of content that has no place on Wikipedia. Nblund ^talk 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That does not look good at all... My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Blacklist ASAP. How has this propaganda machine not been blacklisted yet? It's really remarkable—it couldn't be clearer that under no circumstance is The Epoch Times a reliable source, IMO. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support RFC I'm not sure if this came up the previous discussion, but the Washington Post also reported on some issues with Wikipedia's use of the Epoch Times at the entry for Hunter Biden. This search of main space links turns up a number of cases where they're cited for pseudo-science (this story at Past life regression, and heavy use of this crazy story at This Man), and it is still cited on a number of BLPs and on stories related to Trump-Russia (Joseph Misfud, Paul Manafort). It's even cited at the entry for QAnon. The site is ubiquitous on social media, and it looks just presentable enough that users might sometimes mistake it for a reliable source. Based on this, I think its worth establishing a general consensus. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Support deprecating The Epoch Times as a reliable source per nom and Nblund. See my RfC below re: Media Matters for America. We should not be, either, considering PACs and non-profits directly connected to PACs to be reliable sources. Doug Mehus T·C 00:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Epoch Times

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Epoch Times (RSP entry)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for news
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for news
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail (RSP entry)

— Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Context matters: Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of The Epoch Times's news coverage, such as edition (the English edition at theepochtimes.com   and the Chinese edition at epochtimes.com  ), topic (e.g. Chinese politics, American politics, international politics, and Falun Gong-related topics), and year of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Epoch Times)

• Deprecate ASAP. Under no circumstance should this Falun Gong propaganda machine be considered a reliable source. The links provided by other users above make the source's utter unreliability crystal clear. For those new to the topic, I recommend this recent write up (The New Republic), think Russia Today—as the New Republic article puts it: "The Times has built a global propaganda machine, similar to Russia’s Sputnik or RT, that pushes a mix of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that has won it far-right acolytes around the world." :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 This isn't a good source, but judging by its complete usage, I don't see a reason for general prohibition on its use. The domains theepochtimes.com (English version) and epochtimes.com (Chinese version - is this RfC about both?) are used 1,348 times in Wikipedia. Most that I glimpsed through were rather uncontroversial, especially from the Chinese domain. The discussion above was rather insincere in my view. The Facebook advert ban was due to circumventing Facebook's political advertisement rules, not its news coverage. A QAnon story is being cited in support of deprecating it, but all I see in that story is reporting what the QAnon is, not advocating for it. Yeah, they also have more trashy stuff like the vaccine story as a "VIEWPOINTS" article, but so do many other lower-end sources like The Huffington Post. As for being pro-Trump: WP:PARTISAN applies and it should not be used for controversial statements. It's not feasible to deprecate all lower-end sources from the right-wing of the political spectrum. --Pudeo (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the Epoch Times, they are unaware of why they were blocked from Facebook ([1]). Whether that's true or not is unclear, as the source is itself not unreliable, but what is clear is that the Epoch Times is a propaganda outlet for Falun Gong—it's about reliable and journalistic as Russia Today. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The articles states If the Q posts are real, they may indicate that the Trump administration has established an alternate channel to speak to supporters, bypassing news outlets and social media altogether for something more direct. They're clearly pushing this as a plausible idea. Also: they were banned by Facebook because they created sockpuppet domains so that they could continue to run conspiracy themed ads that failed to meet Facebook's absurdly lax standards. This isn't just a low quality source. Nblund ^talk 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. "Context matters" is not an appropriate approach for a source that just makes stuff up while claiming not to - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'd say close to RT or Global Times for Chinese politics and controversial statements, close to CS Monitor or Deseret News for general topics. Epoch Times is a publication associated with a new religious movement suppressed by China. It's obviously biased against China and its ruling party (thus WP:PARTISAN applies), but it runs both ways: Global Times is unlikely to be much better of a source for Epoch Times than vice versa. feminist (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The Epoch Times peddles unconfirmed rumours, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and antivax propaganda, causing itself to be banned by Facebook. See NBC expose, Washington Post article, and NYT article. According to The New Republic, its European sites are even worse, and have become the mouthpiece of the far right fringe. -Zanhe (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate As per sources on the Epoch Times page they "peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media" and "its network of news sites and YouTube channels has made it a powerful conduit for the internet’s fringier conspiracy theories, including anti-vaccination propaganda and QAnon, to reach the mainstream." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2 As I said bias is not a criteria for exclusion. We can use it if we attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe above and MarioGom below. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• 4 (Deprecate) or 3 Some news pieces are just fine, but usually a more realiable source exists for the same events. On the other hand, they insist on pushing for WP:FRINGE theories, they use news pieces as a hook for conspiracies (see my comment in the discussion) and you cannot just single them out by excluding opinion pieces. This undermines the reliability of The Epoch Times as a whole. Their magazines include a lot of WP:FRINGE commentary of notable wingnuts and charlatans, which may be useful for attributed quotes of these subjects' views when they are WP:DUE. --MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - per Zanhe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, would need a very strong reason to include this as a source for anything. Guy (help!) 12:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - The Epoch Times was founded as a propaganda outlet for a new religious movement and has, over time, gotten less reliable rather than more. While it was previously a relatively trashy outlet that was generally untrustworthy for anything controversial but might serve for routine, non-controversial information, it has transformed into a platform for pseudoscience, conspiracism and misinformation. The veneer of respectability and the ubiquity of Epoch Times newspapers in major urban centers makes it a substantial risk as a source of RS-looking misinformation on Wikipedia. We need to eliminate this source once and for all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate both versions. A source that merely has a perspective (even a strong perspective) is usable, but a biased source that also spreads conspiracy theories or fringe theories in the service of their bias is not; it's clear that this source lacks the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Since both versions are under the same management and seem intended to serve the same purpose, neither seems like a usable source. --Aquillion (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate This does not seem reliable, especially given its history of consipracy theories and support of what elsewhere could be considered Fake news. --- FULBERT (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate seems appropriate here because they publish conspiracy theories and hoaxes, and they've willfully mislead readers and advertisers. From what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of the content is unattributed aggregations of other news stories. The writers for the site are doing dozens of stories per day. Jack Phillips wrote 15 on October 8, none of those stories appear to involve any original reporting, and there are plenty of other sources for all of them. The content that is "original" to the site is garbage. They've repeatedly pushed QAnon, and now "Spygate", and their "wellness" reporting is rife with quackery. Stories like this one appear to be unmarked advertising, and they've given over a decade of breathlessly positive coverage of the Shen Yun performing arts company. None of that coverage discloses that the performing group is a project of the Falun Gong. Obviously there are worse sources out there, but this one seems to pose a high risk of causing a problem here because they have the look of a credible website Nblund ^talk 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. No reason for an encyclopedia to use such a low-quality publication. Neutrality^talk 18:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2- per feminist and Slatersteven. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 (first choice) or "2" (second choice). Looks similar to Fox news or RT (Russia). My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate/Option 4 Too unreliable. If they have reliable articles, it will be covered by other news outlets too. The Banner talk 21:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 I dislike the trend towards deprecating sources willy-nilly. I think it should be reserved for extreme cases. I looked at some of the examples of allegedly "fake" reporting listed here, and my impression was that the Epoch Times was writing a story about something that didn't need a story written about it, but I didn't see anything that was obviously false. That said, I couldn't find a corrections page on their site, so I'd go with option 3. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• 1, 2, or 3 - depends on the context I think, and not a broad category. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 or possibly 3, per Nblund. If a person with a Wikipedia article wrote an opinion piece that appeared on Epoch Times, I'd first ask myself why they couldn't get it published elsewhere, and potentially use it with direct attribution, but never for regular news reporting. I don't think they'd tamper with other people's opinion pieces but that's a low bar. Anything Epoch Times can provide reliable coverage for should have reliable coverage elsewhere.-Ich (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Zanhe and others above. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Epoch Times is an unreliable source, publishing alarmist "news" stories that are often fringe theories or conspiracy theories. Definitely not up to the standards of Wikipedia for a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - Epoch Times has always been unreliable for Chinese political news, but it seems to have been moving toward fringe conspiracy theories on a host of other issues, as others have highlighted. I don't think it meets our standards for general usage.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 / Deprecate: There's been weak to no support in this discussion for ET's journalistic integrity. Per :bloodofox: and Nblund: while the patently partisan bias alone isn't enough to justify its deprecation, there's been much ado about how far their writers will alter their stories to sway readers towards their own views. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 10:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3: They cover conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. They're not trying to say any of that nonsense is true, just that it's a notable part of the discourse. And the "mouthpiece" argument makes no sense given that 99% of their article are not about that. Are newspapers started by Christians automatically mouthpieces for Christianity? Connor Behan (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Generally unreliable but not completely useless as a source in all contexts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• 2 to 4 Sometimes they have excellence interview with notable people. Sometimes their news reporting are so exclusively that either they have very good insider, or just fabricating the news. For example, claiming Sing Tao Daily (Canada) moved their editorial board to Mainland China. Matthew hk (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Options 2 To be evaluated case by case. Even NY Times publishes rot sometimes. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 4 while I wouldn't support deprecating all religious sources, The Epoch Times seems to be one that clearly crosses the line and is perfectly willing to publish nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 3 or Option 2 per above. Doug Mehus T·C 00:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 2 narrative not in line with other major media outlets. Biased towards politics in China. --Rgb128 (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. I can´t imagine any high quality encyclopedia using The Epoch Times as a source. JimRenge (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC) (orig. added 03:10, 28 November 2019)

Discussion (The Epoch Times)

• I was initially reluctant to start this RfC, but many editors in the above discussion proposed measures that should undergo wider community review. With 5 previous noticeboard discussions, The Epoch Times is a controversial source that deserves a thorough examination. Pinging previous commenters Bender235, Slatersteven, My very best wishes, Simonm223, Aquillion, Nblund, and Bloodofox as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newslinger: please clarify whether this would deprecate the Chinese edition (epochtimes.com - 519 uses) in addition to the English version (theepochtimes.com - 829 uses)? --Pudeo (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    • ​That's a good question. The options are just suggestions and it's up to individual editors to specify which editions of The Epoch Times their classifications apply to. If there are two separate consensuses for the English edition and the Chinese edition, we would create a split entry on the perennial sources list, e.g. RT (general topics) and RT (controversial topics, international politics), and the editions would be treated differently. An opinion without a qualifier would apply to all aspects of The Epoch Times (including edition, topic, and time period) as a whole. I'll clarify this below the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 20:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Pudeo:. I would say both English and Chinese edition of the newspaper, had very questionable news article. It depends on community want an outright ban, or examinate the news article individually. Matthew hk (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Falun Gong work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 04:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Epoch Times pushes for all kinds of WP:FRINGE theories, not just QAnon and antivax as others mentioned. They have a lot of articles promoting the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (The Communist Sexual Agenda, The Infiltration of Marxism Into Higher Education (Part 1 of 2)). Note that this is not confined to opinion sections, they also use news pieces as coatrack for it. Let's take Hundreds of Young Transgender People Asking for Help to Return to Original Sex: Report. If we wanted to use that story, we could just use the original from Sky News ([2]), since The Epoch Times just uses the Sky News report as a hook to promote theories about communists promoting homosexuality to undermine the family and so on. --MarioGom (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Note also the push for pseudoscientific theories on medicine such as functional medicine, promotion of bogus claims on cancer treatment by Cancer Treatment Centers of America#Controversy, etc. It seems related items have been used as a source in Wikipedia: Woman Has Spiritual Near-Death Experience, Cancer Cured as Result? --MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine MarioGom (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we even having this discussion? Did someone blank Wikipedia:RSCONTEXT without telling me? Does the FAQ at WT:V which has said "The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support" for years, suddenly disappear? This source, like every other source, can only be judged to be reliable in context. It's not "reliable" or "not reliable". As a general rule, this source is going to be "reliable for certain narrowly written and carefully contextualized statements". It may be best to use it with WP:INTEXT attribution. It may not be the best possible source for general information. But reliability is not a yes-or-no situation. The whole concept behind this RFC (also: an RFC on a high-traffic noticeboard? What's going on with that?) is flawed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We're having this conversation because the argument has been made that this outlet has equivalent reliability to sources like The Daily Mail and The National Enquirer while still being used as a source in multiple articles. As it is actively anti-reliable as a source, site-wide action is necessary. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Was there a series of real dispute that editors had difficulty resolving? I'm not seeing evidence of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WhatamIdoing: Sources can be used in certain contexts even if they are WP:DEPRECATED. You may have to argue with someone who thinks that deprecated means completely blacklisted, but it should be ok otherwise if it is justified. Do you see any problem with this specific RfC? Or you are against the source deprecation process itself, or maybe the perennial sources list? --MarioGom (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm against anything that indicates to other editors that the rest of us think don't think they can figure out how to write a decent article without the rest of us telling them to follow some more rules first. People with a classical education might be thinking about the Woes of the Pharisees here, and I admit that it's not far from my mind.
      MarioGom, I see your account is just two and a half years old, so you probably don't remember when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was taken seriously as a policy, when the article was more important than the rules, and when "You may have to argue with someone" to be permitted to do what was right by an article meant that a policy or process was fundamentally broken. If RS/P results in editors having to argue with mindless rule-followers about whether it's okay to improve an article, and if it's putting the emphasis on what's "allowed" instead of what's best for the article, then I'll be against it. If it provides practical help to editors writing articles, then I'll be all for it. Perhaps you can tell me which category you think it's most likely to fall into. So far, all I see is that the list grows endlessly, and it is largely populated by people who aren't creating much content, and largely used by people who aren't genuinely trying to figure out whether a source is desirable in a particular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The way I look at it (certainly others may feel differently) is that, given the (absolutely appropriate) emphasis on Reliable Sourcing, the RS/P is an incredibly useful tool, especially for new editors who may not have a firm grasp on what constitutes a reliable source or know how to dig through the RSN archives. I know it certainly was for me. I also believe that its usefulness is directly connected to its accuracy, and these discussions help to improve that accuracy by giving an accurate measure of a source's basic credibility. Even RSCONTEXT says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Discussions like this help us assign a rough reliability, according to this exact metric, to sources. Yes, context is still important, but that doesn't mean that the New York Times and the National Enquirer should be treated the same, as if they each require the same amount of scrutiny to determine whether a given article in either is acceptable to cite for an article here. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • AmbivalentUnequivocality, could you explain that bit about RSCONTEXT better? I'm not sure how it relates. That sentence, in plain English, means "The New York Times, which has more than four thousand employees, is usually more reliable than little tiny newspapers like The Mulberry Advance, whose sole employee has to do everything from selling subscriptions to writing articles to sweeping the floor". I don't see how any discussion on Wikipedia could realistically "help to improve that accuracy", because "according to this exact metric", the only way for a source to become more reliable is to hire more journalists. The number of Wikipedians involved in these RFCs is irrelevant "according to this exact metric". "This exact metric" is about what they do, not about what we do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
          • WhatamIdoing Certainly. My reading on that sentence is slightly different than yours. I don't see it as being the same as "More employees = more reliable" because not all publications utilize their employees the same way. It is about how many people are actually engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing. More employees does not necessarily mean that they have more people doing those things. A large paper could employ thousands of people and still not commit any sizable number of them to fact checking, and a small paper could have relatively few employees but still conduct robust and thorough fact checking on what material they publish. It is what they do with their employees, and how well they do it, that matters. Yes, this metric is about what they do, but our part in it is elucidating what it is that they are doing. Our part is figuring out how robust their reputation for fact checking is, how strong their editorial oversight is, how readily they retract and correct errors. Publications that knowingly publish false claims, or unknowingly publish easily disprovable ones, clearly show a lack of such robustness. We can improve the RS/P by accurately assessing how well a given publication commonly meets these criteria. There is value in having a list that accurately represents the general quality of various sources according to the established criteria of what constitutes reliability, but to do that we must determine how well a given source meets those criteria. I believe that is something we can do, and I believe that discussions like this aid in achieving that goal. Treating every source as though they are all equally likely to produce reliable reporting seems shortsighted to me. Yes, reliability is about what they do. Our discussions do not make a publication reliable or unreliable. But our discussions do help accurately assess whether they are doing the things that are considered indicative of general reliability (Robust fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.), or whether they are engaged in behavior that is indicative of pervasive unreliability (Intentionally publishing false or misleading claims, pushing fringe conspiracy theories, etc.) AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • WhatamIdoing: So if I understand correctly, you are against the deprecation of sources itself or this kind of RfC, but you have no particular concern about this specific RfC. I can understand that. It has certainly been problematic for me in the past. For example, when spotting an inaccurate story published at a sourced marked as generally reliable on perennial sources. But that's beyond the scope here, I guess. --MarioGom (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
        • That's the issue as I see it, and not beyond consideration here, that commentary must be distinguished from credible news, even in articles that are reporting some news. A neutral point of view doesn't sell many books or newspapers. Jzsj (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Frankly I think the use of newsmedia is generally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and leads to many of our woes surrounding WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT and WP:DUE across the site. When a newsmedia source compounds this problematic character by straight-up fabricating news to push a POV, well, if I think we shouldn't be leaning so hard on the NYT you can imagine what I think about such tabloids. And the Epoch Times, which was founded with the intent of being used as a propaganda outlet is one of the worst of a bad bunch. I'm sure an WP:IAR case might exist where deprecation might prove a challenge, but honestly I don't see it. And avoiding a 99% improvement to avoid a 1% chance of future impediments seems like weak cost-benefit analysis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • ^agreed. The consensus on deprecation can always change, but I have spent some time browsing the site, and I really haven't found a single story that appears reliable and not covered by a more reputable source. The Washington Post reports that the majority of the staffers are mostly part-time/volunteers rather than journalists, so it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to see any real reporting coming from them. Nblund ^talk 17:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I agree with Jzsj's point. That's why we avoid {{one source}} articles. Librarians make a distinction between having "a balanced book" and "a balanced library": while there's a place in the world for a balanced book (history textbooks for schoolchildren spring to mind as an example), it's usually better to have multiple books (e.g., a book about a war that argues persuasively that it was all economics, a book that promotes the diplomatic aspects, a book that that focuses on the Great man theory, etc., so that you end up with a balanced view). But you have to read multiple sources to figure out where the sources differ from each other.
              Simonm223, it's always good to find an idealist on the English Wikipedia. ;-)
              Nblund, I believe that's true. However, the definition of "reliable" isn't "the most reputable source we could use for this statement". "Barely reliable" is still reliable. (IMO this source is probably "reliable enough" for some claims. You won't see me seeking it out, however.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Just a warning even about high school history books. It's reliably reported that conservative groups attend trustees meetings as in Texas and New York, and any trustee who approves of a book that criticizes capitalism or American democracy is "history". The few publishers don't take a chance with such books. To get a more objective course in American history one needs to use a college textbook. Jzsj (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Epoch Times. — Newslinger talk 01:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October)

Should The Gateway Pundit be deprecated? Or listed as generally unreliable? Or something else?

See thegatewaypundit.com  ; and for earlier thegatewaypundit.com discussion see earlier Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#Among low-quality sources, the most popular websites are right-wing sources; along with other previous mentions at: 256, 250, 241, and 233. X1\ (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey (The Gateway Pundit)

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

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. I see clear consensus to deprecate the use of "The Gateway Pundit" as a source. (non-admin closure) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

---

• Depreciate / Unacceptable as a source. It's a batshit insane far-right conspiracy blog. I don't know the difference between "depreciation" and "generally unreliable", but I support whatever ensures that this rubbish doesn't get cited here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for just about anything outside of their opinion, with in-line citations, in rare situations where their opinion is directly relevant; they're a blog with no particular reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (obviously.) That said, see my comment below - they're only being cited five times that I can see. As far as I can tell nobody is arguing that they are reliable anywhere for stuff outside that. We don't need to hold RFCs for things that are already universally-accepted; there are far too many unreliable sources in existence to enumerate them all. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion, are you opposed to deprecating? X1\ (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unreliable for statements of fact, and opinion wouldn't/shouldn't carry much weight in most cases, but as Aquillion says, it's not exactly a frequent problem. Certainly not opposed to deprecating if there's evidence it would save a nontrivial amount of effort. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• In the very least unreliable. François Robere (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable for anything beyond their own opinion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable for ... anything. Given that it's a hoax/fake news site I wouldn't even use them for their own "opinion" since those could just as well be trolling. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate this fake news website known for partisan hackery and hoax articles. This is never an acceptable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable, do not deprecate Clearly not a reliable site. No reason to deprecate as it clearly isn't being treated as reliable. We need to stop the deprecation game even with sites like this. Springee (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Springee, but they are often cited on Talk pages, per "everywhere search". Again, why do you say deprecation game? X1\ (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• You are free to disagree with the term game but I'm firmly against going around and deprecating sources left and right. I'm not sure how deprecation is even supportable under WP:RS. My concern is two fold. First, let's assume a number of deprecated sources are all talking about the same thing. That means there might be some WEIGHT for inclusion in an article. That doesn't mean we treat the material as reliable but I do think deprecated sources can help establish weight if not reliability of some information. Here is another problem [[3]]. An article about Mossberg cited The Daily Caller for a basic factual claim (company had produced X number of some shotgun). This isn't a critical fact but for readers who are interested in firearms the article is better for it's inclusion and it certainly isn't a controversial claim. The citation was removed since DC has been deprecated. Now do we actually think the DC isn't reliable for that particular claim? So the typical reply when someone brings up such a point is, well if it's DUE then a RS will mention it and we can source it there. So I looked. I didn't check every link but what I found was a Mossberg press release (likely the DC's source of information) and a number of firearms blogs and forums discussing the topic. None of those sources would pass RS muster. However, the fact that so many websites are talking about the production stat suggests that, for that narrow audience, this is something that improves the Wiki article. If DC were treated like we treat a low quality source like Splinter News we would use them cautiously but we wouldn't have editors seeking out all references and removing the citation or even worse, removing the article content with the citation. I see no advantage to marking such sources with a "kill on sight" order. So, even in a case like there where I would be very suspect of any claim made by this source, I'm against deprecation here because I think it is problematic in principle. Springee (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know if we deprecate sources only for the AP2 area, but that is where they are completely unreliable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I would be more comfortable with the concept if we specified something like AP2. Springee (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Presumably "AP2" is wp:AP2, correct? X1\ (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable in the slightest. Depreciate – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate I'm not sure this is necessary, because it seems like they are essentially already de-facto deprecated since they're a widely recognized purveyor of fake news. I don't see any problem with formalizing that classification, though. Nblund ^talk 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable and OK with deprecating - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate The fewer of these blatant misinformation sites we entertain, the better the whole project will be. They have a tendency toward supporting conspiracy theories, don't fact check much at all and exist as a propaganda tool. An encyclopedia should not be depending on such outlets. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• In the very least unreliable. I agree with Simonm223 and most others, deprecate is appropriate. This source is perennial as noted by various contributors, particularly highlighted by Aquillion's everywhere search. It will be useful to point novices, contrarians, etc to the Wikipedia:RSP citation of discussion if it gets a place on the table (hopefully). I don't understand Springee's "deprecation game" comment. How is it a "game"? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate X1\ and Simonm223 make excellent points. The source regularly reports on conspiracy theories under the guise of news, which immediately calls into question whether any of their genuine news coverage is tainted with the desire to drive readers towards their own partisan views. Their SEO is structured so anyone looking to affirm a personal bias could easily search for say, "Badger Party planning frisbee ban", and get something resembling a WP:RS that could be injected into an article and left standing as authoritative information until another editor eventually susses it out. →‎ GS →‎ ☎ → 05:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable not "Deprecate" Deprecation is an extreme option over-used but not consistently used (leftist sources are usually spared the measure of deprecation). We have good, workable guidelines in WP:BIASED which allow editors to use their judgment with sources like the one we're talking about. Deprecation when there's no signifcant pattern of a given source being used to prop POV up in our articles is itself deprecated in WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Leftist sources rarely engage in conspiracy theories treated as reportage. Those that do should be deprecated too. Simonm223 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Simonm223's Those that do should be deprecated too. For useful list of "Hyper-Partisan Left - Most Extreme Left", see here (collected by BullRangifer). X1\ (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see any appropriate sources on that list. Though I wouldn't call any of them extreme left so much as extreme anti-Republican with poor or non-existent standards for fact checking. Thx X1.Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate I'm a latecomer to this but can't see a good rationale not to. Given the 3 posts above I'll add that this treatment should be even, any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Bingo! Doug Weller there is another thread here about Fox News talk show hosts (not the News division). "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." The same applies to them, and they should be deprecated. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Doug Weller I support the sentiment, but the application is lacking. This is particularly noticeable in the area of criminal justice. Freddie Gray was hurt before he was put in the van, not while he was in it. Daniel Holtzclaw's conviction is laden with red flags strongly suggesting that he didn't do any of it. And the Duke Lacrosse case was proven BS long before the NYT, WaPo, etc. said so. Each of the above has been documented in voluminous detail on sites that often remain relatively obscure and/or are treated as "unreliable" by WikiConsensus, while media that push "mainstream" narratives that fly in the face of demonstrable facts escape WikiPunishment. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: provide RSs for your claims. X1\ (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I can do that in the Duke case.[4] In the Freddy Gray case, I have a source that is likely WP:RS via WP:USEBYOTHERS, namely [5], but even there, there are WP:SYNTH issues, as the conclusion is obvious from listening to the whole thing, but I'm not sure if it's stated explicitly. In the Holtzclaw case, there appears to be consensus that the sources are not WP:RS, and that's the problem. When it is determinable that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong, yet we continue to keep our definitions of what is and is not reliable, then exactly what kind of world are we living in.[6][7][8] Adoring nanny (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A YouTube video by Michelle Malkin is your purported source? The same Michelle Malkin who pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, defends the illegal imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, and says the Anti-Defamation League is conspiring with antifa activists to destroy Trump? Alrighty then. (And your first link is to a website self-published by a member of Holtzclaw's legal defense team.)

Your apparent personal belief that the non-RS have the story right and the RS have it wrong about Holtzclaw is irrelevant to the encyclopedia and can have nothing whatsoever to do with article content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's typical of the type of response I get on this. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to take the considerable time and effort that would be required to determine who has it right and who has it doesn't. It is frustrating to see people respond by lashing out at me and/or the sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: You appear to be off-topic on judging whether The Gateway Pundit should be deprecated , or listed as generally unreliable , or something else? Citing a book is fine but irrelevant, undisclosed-podcast.com is irrelevant, HoltzclawTrial.com is inappropriate, National Review is considered per our table to be debatable, and YouTube is generally unreliable (depends on subsource). In your arguments, using only "generally reliable" sources will add credibility. This isn't the world per your what kind of world are we living in comment, it is Wikipedia and Wikipedia is built on generally reliable RSs, not wp:OR. We remove wp:OR and unreliable RSs, and in some cases we are obligated, by law to remove them. If you are interested in the topics in which you commented and gave sources, that is fine, but this RfC thread is on judging The Gateway Pundit as a source, not a casual forum, see WP:NOT. X1\ (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable Gerntrash (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Gerntrash: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. It's far too unreliable. They regularly push conspiracy theories and lies, often from the Trump administration, passing them off as truth. "Any source that reports conspiracy theories as fact should be deprecated whatever their politics." (Doug Weller). -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - I see it as misleading, sensationalist clickbait. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Unreliable. No corrections page for example, and definitely no reputation for accuracy. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: "Deprecate" since they spread "not" and anti-reliable information? X1\ (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• No. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: elaborate. X1\ (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, in light of your uncivil question to me in another thread on this page, I'll decline to elaborate. I am asking you to disengage from my vote. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. Unreliable source that peddles conspiracy theories. Autarch (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. As above - might as well formalize this, since there is no need to ever cite this. Neutrality^talk 01:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. I don’t think I need to elucidate the reason why per the other comments. There’s clearly a majority consensus emerging in favour of deprecation. We can’t allow shades of grey when a publication this unreliable spreads conspiracy theories and fake news. The amount of discretion required to determine whether anything from this source can even be referenced, let alone to what extent, is clearly an undue burden on editors, and likely to be an exercise in futility. Better to wash our hands of it, and not permit arguments to made based on such a ridiculously unreliable source. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Symmachus Auxiliarus, reason she why? X1\ (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Corrected. I tend to edit from a mobile device these days with a tiny screen, and autocorrect either modifies things to an incoherent degree, or adds some spectacularly horrible predictive text. Thank you for pointing this out. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Symmachus Auxiliarus. I want to understand what you were saying. I make a disconcerting amount of writing errors. Hopefully I catch at least some of them. X1\ (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate: Clear-cut example of being nothing short of a hub for disinformation. ToThAc (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate. In the red box of doom on the media bias chart. Guy (help!) 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Discussion (The Gateway Pundit)

• Is it actually being cited anywhere? A search finds only five uses in article space. Most of those should be replaced, but it's not exactly something pressing enough to require an RFC (with such a small number of cites, all of which look easy-to-replace, you can just replace them and open a discussion leading to an RFC if someone objects and you can't hash it out.) I'm not sure we need to bother with RFCs when it seems like virtually everyone agrees the source is unusable already (and are not using it.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say the important question is not how often is it used at this very moment, but the more difficult to answer, "How often do people try to use it inappropriately and how much time is wasted discussing it?" Deprecating a source can be a huge time saver, assuming there is consensus that the source is bad enough to be worth deprecating, and there is actually time to be saved. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hrm. A search for everywhere rather than just article content does turn up 86 uses (mostly talk.) Even then, though, it seems to be mostly new / inexperienced users bringing it up, and it's pretty clear that every time it comes up people are just like "no, you can't use that as a source." Most of the time they didn't seem to know WP:RS is a thing, so that conversation would still have to happen. --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• There were some attempts to use it in 2016/17 before and after the election. Not so much now. It's possible these attempts could renew as we get closer to 2020. Volunteer Marek 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Aquillion is "Hrm" a reference to Ḥ-R-M? X1\ (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecating a source because it might be abused in the future is political censorship. It seeks to usurp editors' judgment generally to apply the WP:BIASED guidelines because a given source might be abused - but no significant amount of such abuse is evident. Using the RFC process to censor future edits to the encyclopedia by prior restraint needs to be examined in the light of WP:NOTCENSORED. --loupgarous (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Vfrickey: the only prediction we have is by using past evidence, so we go by a sources' "track record", and for this one it is not good. X1\ (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Aquillion, the reason for that is User:JzG#Red box sources - I already replaced it wherever I found it, more than once probably. So the fact that there are cites now mean it's being added anew, and thus is probably a valid candidate for the filter. Guy (help!) 21:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: "The Gateway Pundit" (October). — Newslinger talk 08:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've added a suggested deprecation list entry for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Suggested_text_for_Gateway_Pundit_deprecation - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: "ProPublica" (October)

Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable for news coverage? Or something else?

I see the issue; Should ProPublica be listed as a generally reliable in its areas of expertise? Or something else? X1\ (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

See propublica.org   and everywhere search in wp; and for earlier ProPublica.org discussion mentions see wp:RSN Archives: 132, 178, 213, 246, 251, 263, and 268. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated lede sentence per feedback. X1\ (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC) Bolded the lede to make the questions standout. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (ProPublica)

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise Generally reliable for news coverage. X1\ (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Updated my "vote" due to a couple of comments. X1\ (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Please name specifically what the "areas of expertise" are. And please provide the RS you used to support that set of topics as being their areas of expertise, thanks. Note: No WP:OR of inferring from awards please, only state language and the source you had per WP:RS, please *not* one of its partners. And you can ignore the table. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, the "partners" are a long list of reliable RSs ...? X1\ (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ The topic is please name specifically the “areas of expertise”, with preference to articles on ProPublica from independent sources — so preferably not a partner. If you didn’t have an independent source mentioning such or were just using a phrase without RS then just say so. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Haven't even started a search. So let me understand, you provide non-RS (see below) when RS is requested, and you want me to not use RS, such as "generally reliable": The Atlantic , BBC , Bloomberg Businessweek , CNN , Financial Times , The Guardian , Los Angeles Times , Mother Jones , The Nation , New York , The New York Times , The New Yorker , Newsweek , Politico , PolitiFact , The Sunday Times , Time , Vanity Fair , Vox , The Washington Post , Wired ? Or other RS, such as: 60 Minutes, ABC News, CBS News, Center for Investigative Reporting, The Center for Public Integrity, CNBC, Consumer Reports, Frontline, NBC News, and NPR News? X1\ (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• You just answered the question with “haven’t even started a search”, which I think means your input was from personal impression vice a source. I haven’t checked your list above, but yes independent source would indeed mean one not among the 47 (?) listed as their partner, and independent source input is preferred. A good source should not be used as RS on itself or its business partners. That would still leave thousands of sites for possible commentary on them ... London Times, Toronto Star, NY Post, FoxNews, The Independent, Globe and Mail ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• User:X1\ You have not answered what “areas of expertise” are yet. Please list specifics, or presumption will be undefined = none stated = none. Your first phrasing here was obviously off, and I’m suspecting you’re unable to back anything up. WP:ONUS is on you to support your claim. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Besides all the areas in which they've received awards? --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Markbassett: can I use generally reliable RS? X1\ (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Preferably use sources not partners to them, otherwise I think any written stable and available location may be mined for inputs. It would seem necessary for any rating to have some details of area(s) or nature framing the evaluation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: as you insist on using "generally unreliable" or known biased sources so far, I request that you only use "generally reliable" sources from now on. It has been suggested that it may be foolish to assume good faith given your behavior here. I will considered all arguments you have made using non-generally-reliable sources to be specious and spurious. I request that you desist from behavior that can be viewed as disruptive. X1\ (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ This subthread asked you to name your proposed “areas of expertise”. Turned out you had nothing specific in mind. Don’t make insinuations for questions similar to what you were making. The question was asked, you replied, it’s time to end the subthread. Markbassett (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I consider both "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" and "generally reliable for news coverage" to be terms of art. Just "Generally reliable" would be pithier. 23:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Ronz makes an excellent suggestion of expertise in journalism / reporting. Pulitzer would be an RS. X1\ (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• London Times (The Times) is same review on wp:RSP as The Sunday Times so you say "no" to your own suggestion. The New York Post is , and Fox News is problematic also with a and Fox News controversies (with their own anchors stating what they report is not always accurate, shall we say). X1\ (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

My input to first version of question Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not news coverage - umm, they can't be a RS for news because they don't DO news of the day. They don't cover what is happening with Kurds or Brexit this week, Canadian election results, the woes of Man Utd, or natural disasters and such. They do investigative pieces from a progressive POV, with a data analysis approach. ProPublica is respectably known and usually has a factual data-driven content, but they do have a bias that they're open about, and do not present a balanced picture which they also are open about. It's going to be about telling you a way to see something Wrong from a progressive view point and nothing much else. Very well done, but limited in scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC) umm, Markbassett, are you attempting a joke? If so, this is not the time or place. X1\ (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC) User:X1\ ??? No, it's no joke, don't see why you would think it was -- they really are not news coverage. Which I thought your later !vote-change edit indicated accepting. The being limited in scope and POV - well, again don't see how you could read that as a joke, it's basically said on their website and mission declarations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC) @Markbassett: so you believe ProPublica can't be a RS for anything? X1\ (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC) User:X1\ the question asked was if “generally reliable for news coverage”, and my answer was no, because they don’t do that. Still don’t see how you felt that was a joke. I see there’s now a revised question “generally reliable in its areas of expertise”, which I haven’t responded to. As to whether they’re a RS for anything, that isn’t the topic and I’d prefer to just deal with the revised topic if anything. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Markbassett, Cheers X1\ (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Determine case-by-case - self-declared not balanced coverage, and expertise subject to author Mostly that editorial control and qualifications only extends to in-house writers. The external submitters and co- or re-published external pieces may differ. Generally seems excellent quality in writing and methods, but selection of facts and direction to analysis is self-admitted and noted by critics. In other words, this isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, so conclusions are likely POV but reported data is likely reliable. Positive points for background of reporters usually being well qualified in the field, positive points for being explicit online in how they check and self-admitting their limitations. Minor negatives that with the analysis pieces I saw there seems no open access to raw data, and minor negative that I see no example of a retraction. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett provide RSs for selection of facts, not balanced coverage, isn't the whole story or necessarily a fair one, likely POV, and previous request for RSs of progressive POV, have a bias, and do not present a balanced picture. Note: No wp:OR, only provide RS, such as from the table with . X1\ (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

1) User:X1\ ? I don't see any "previous request for RSs" so I'll start from here, and take your asking as giving me permission to ask the same in return. I presume you are asking about their internal reporters instead of noting that they have external submissions and collaborations of co- or republished material not done under the same editorial control. As I recall, I looked their self-declaration and then what others said about them, and did a couple Googles of them with some negative words.

2) Mission is "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"

3) Follow that with keeping bias out vs "investigative" - "First, it’s important to point out that ProPublica focuses mainly on investigative journalism, which is a particular genre that makes its reporting different than, say, political coverage. In most cases, investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue. ... The stories often have a particular structure: Some person, government agency or other entity allegedly did something wrong and harmed others. Almost always, the wrongdoing is set against a standard — a law, ethical practice or norm. ... So on a certain level, some point of view is baked into investigative stories because, in many cases, reporters begin with a tip or data that suggests wrongdoing and then set out to determine if it occurred."

4) Externally, MediaBiasFatCheck rates them "Left-Center biased based on story selection that favors the left and factually High due to proper sourcing and evidence based reporting." It notes their collaborations are with 47 sources including reputable left leaning news organizations. Also it mentions "In general, their investigations look at corruptions and abuses of power. While ProPublica purports to be non-partisan, a review of their recent reports are aimed at right leaning politicians and their issues." This criticism was also mentioned (more colorfully) by The Washington Examiner ProPublica is the left's biggest muckraker you never heard of.

5) Example of criticism included their Surgeons Scorecard, as an example of Bad Data vs No Data. It was noted as setting off a firestorm, eviscerated in New England Journal of Medecine by Lisa Rosenbaum, and critiqued by The Rand Corp.

6) I think that'll do for a start - next I'll put a question back at you. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, see request 19:37, 26 October 2019. X1\ (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• ah, I see it now, a few screens *down* from here VS above here. I’ll go put in a reply. Markbassett (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (2) "Mission" is a value showing strong bold/courageous investigative journalism, thus RS. You have made similar comments implying such things are a sign of weakness, odd. X1\ (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ “Mission” is always a goal, the thing one is stating one has an emotional prejudice and is biased about. Companies are biased about money in their field; Governments are biased about their nation, party, and power; Charities are biased on the topic they are pursuing. You don’t expect unbiased data from a Tobacco-area company or Government about cancer, and neither should one expect accuracy about drunk driving from MADD. An honest advocate presents *their* points and is open about having an agenda. One can only hope and check independent sources to see if there isn’t exaggeration or outright falsehoods. ProPublica seems open about their goals and methods, and the general constraints of the nature of the methods. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: you don't expect a government could be unbiased about cancer? X1\ (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ A Tobbaco-area government would have a vested interest in and be subject to influences in their region. This is an inherent and natural bias. They would be possible as having expertise and being vocal on the topic, but it should be handled as a WP:BIASED RS. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• High-quality generally reliable journalism has very different motivation from the tobacco industry (which I consider to be drug dealers). High-quality generally reliable journalism "bias" is to continue a good reputation for their "product", i.e. journalism. X1\ (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (3): again odd that you believe this statement represents something other than "generally reliable" RS. X1\ (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ seems odder that you’re saying RS yet unwilling to give any consideration to ***their self-declaration of limits*** ??? Seems they would be RS for that. Usually self-claimed flaws are accepted and self-claimed expertise is checked. Markbassett (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: your use of three *, three ?, and the words "limits" & "flaws" are indicative of WP:BATTLE-mentality, and is not Wikipedia:5P. X1\ (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ still the conundrum remains of holding ProPublica RS yet unwilling to give ***any*** consideration to ***their own declaration of limits***. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (4): the Washington Examiner is listed as with a Summary including Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source; can't you find a non-biased source to use as an RS? X1\ (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Mmm... would that mention of WE partisan be indicating WE remarks are suspect because ProPublica is left-bias? Markbassett (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your fishing, Markbassett, is indicative of WP:BATTLE mentality, and is not Wikipedia:5P. X1\ (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ Seemed like saying WE is partisan was only relevant if PP is their opposing side. It’s plainly visible that WE wrote a criticism at the given link, so no other point was visible. Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, Media Bias/Fact Check site looks interesting, I'll check it out. X1\ (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• X1\, MBFC is not reliable in the slightest (as several discussions on this noticeboard have conclusively shown). The site is basically one random dude's opinions. It's not surprising in the slightest but still incredibly disappointing that a highly active editor in American politics, Markbassett, cites it as a reliable source while he attacks one of the greatest journalistic outfits as unreliable. Just further proof of why editing in American politics is so dysfunctional. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you Snooganssnoogans, I see MBFC is "generally unreliable" . X1\ (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, item (5) "Surgeons Scorecard": I don't have access to either Medscape.com or NEJM.org; so not respondable. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ - that’s odd, I seem able to get into the sites at least. Oh well, existence and nature of criticism description is at MediaBiasFactCheck and is easily findable by google at multiple other venues. That medical community is not entirely happy with scores nor method of scoring seems hardly EXCEPTIONAL anyway - just proceed from ‘major and noted medical publications objected to ProPublicas scorecard’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: why after Snooganssnoogans' warning would you persist in using a "generally unreliable" source such as MBFC? Are you attempting to make a mockery of the wp:RSN process? X1\ (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ why do you persist in not just proceed from ‘major and noted medical publications objected to ProPublica scorecard’. This seems a moot Ad hominem since the leads to partners and WE criticism are objective fact. If you want to google up someone else saying they have partners and critics, feel free. Simply accept that the medical community RS authority is relevant. Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• User:X1\ - ProPublica stated some limits about their own nature, WP:MEDHRS WP:MEDRS gave criticisms of their scorecard, and yes they have been criticized by others. Please give up the WP:IDHT and accept the obvious objective reality and move along, or at least give up on the apparently endless moot pings. And again, no area of expertise actually is specified so you might want to propose some, but that’s up to you. Over & out Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have seen the controversial ProPublica § Surgeon Scorecard section. X1\ (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand your Redlink. X1\ (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @X1\: and @Snooganssnoogans:, you aren't going to convince @Markbassett: so why bludgeon the discussion? It's unlikely a consensus review would decide that ProPublica is not a generally RS. I don't think Markbassett's concerns were unfounded but bias in this case doesn't mean not generally reliable. X1\ and Snoog, the attacks on Mark for using MBFC are very flawed. I understand Snoog has a dislike of the site and it thus far does not meet our RS standards. That does not mean the site is wrong nor that it can not be used in good faith as a point of talk page discussion. It only means that our standards for sourcing article content are not met. The MBFC has been cited by NPR and several other news organizations as a subject matter expert rather than just a mention. Recently an MIT study used the source as the gold standard for testing a computer bias algorithm. Again, we shouldn't assume that just because a site doesn't meet Wikipedia's RS standards that the information is bad. The accusations of bad faith editing thrown at Mark for daring to use it are an example of the old three fingers pointing back at the accuser. I would suggest just dropping this discussion as it will make no difference in the outcome of this RfC. Springee (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hello Springee. Thank you for joining the discussion. Please provide a link to the NPR link cite that attests to MBFC's credibility and several other news organizations as a subject matter expert to which you speak. To In what do they say MBFC is a subject matter expert? You need not provide a link to an MIT study used the source as the gold standard for testing a computer bias algorithm unless it more relevant than it first appears. X1\ (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Springee, your time is getting short to provide linked evidence of what you say. I'll assume your arguments aren't based in facts without links to the cites, and comments about attacks, very flawed, and three fingers pointing back at the accuser to be some kind of argumentum ad passiones. X1\ (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Markbassett, for comparison, which sources do you consider to be generally reliable? ProPublica has won a Pulitzer three out of the last four years, so I'd be interested to see what does meet your exacting standards. Do you place this above or below the New York Times? Or do you require AP / Reuters level reliability? Guy (help!) 22:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:JzG ProPublica stated some limits about their own nature and POV, and there are additional criticisms including what seems from WP:MEDHRS. These are items any due diligence evaluation should be considering if it is to produce a useful statement of their limits and suitable context (if any). And looking at Pulitzer.org, it seems they did not win 3 of the last 4 years. I see no Pulitzer for them in 2019 or 2018. The New York Daily News and they won in 2017, primarily thru the work of NYDN reporter Sarah Ryley, about police and evictions in NYC. The Marshall Project (unrated) and they shared in 2016 for multiple pieces on law enforcement failures in rape cases. Anyway, so Pulitzer is interesting but not much help here. I’ll suggest this ‘got an award’ argument by association seems a poor support. That didn’t make NYDN an RS, nor even get other recipients consideration. And it doesn’t speak to WP:RS or WP:RSP topics, nor give much aid for the discussion to say RS on what or why, speak to NPOV, etcetera. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• As previously asked, Markbassett, I don't understand your redlink WP:MEDHRS. X1\ (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ WP:MEDRS, meaning at least the scorecard of ProPublica health reporting has been challenged by sources in that field. I have corrected the link. Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable in its areas of expertise When ProPublica does analysis, their number-crunching is reliable. But before they get to crunching numbers, ProPublica designs their studies to test what is generally a partisan hypothesis. They've done good work with the New Yorker in exposing ethical abuses surrounding commercial "storefront" stem cell therapy and their work's been deemed reliable by third party commenters such as medicinal chemist Derek Lowe in his "In The Pipeline" blog. They are useful and reliable on some stories, especially on the technical arguments surrounding contentious issues such as net neutrality (where they would be a good part of a balanced survey of informed opinion on such subjects). As with any openly partisan secondary source, editors ought to review the guidance in WP:BIASED before and while citing ProPublica. --loupgarous (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Vfrickey: could you provide RSs for the openly partisan claim? X1\ (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for all purposes - Five Pulitzer Prizes in 12 years of operation. Widespread recognition and republication in other sources. Zero evidence of any problems with their reporting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes - The arguments presented by MarkBassett are mind-blowingly bad. Just one reason of many why editing in American politics is dysfunctional. ProPublica is top-tier journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable I took a glance at their site and saw this[9] article about "the climate apocalypse to come", which gives me considerable pause. There is no concrete information about this "apocalypse" other than a statement that planned power blackouts are apparently a taste of it. I find the lack of a concrete definition concerning. They don't say what is going to happen or when. The fact that there are predictions of global warming and its consequences does not help them. If an "apocalypse" is coming, they should say what they mean by that. I am therefore going to have to say they are not reliable. Furthermore, their site is obviously WP:PARTISAN. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Adoring nanny: please provide RSs for the claim of obviously WP:PARTISAN. Your glance appears rather unfounded, as I see nothing not RS in the Abrahm Lustgarten article on 2019 California power shutoffs you apparently gave as evidence. Using a hyperbolic term in a title has been all-too-common in recent years; not evidence of non-RS. Provide evidence of your Not reliable claim. X1\ (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Adoring nanny: see within the link you provided high quality RSs such as NPR.org, NYT; the article was co-published with New York Times magazine. X1\ (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Adoring nanny: presumably, you understand WP:IDL is not the same as Not reliable. X1\ (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Adoring nanny, since you are not providing any backing for your comments, but providing a source to refute, am I to assume your first reaction was just I don't like it? If so, strikeout your "Not reliable" comment. There are eight "Generally reliable", one equivocation, and your (currently) unbacked "Not reliable". X1\ (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, where we strive to provide reliable information, we have an article about Global warming, and the Timeline of the far future states that in 1.3 billion years, Eukaryotic life will probably die out on Earth due to increased Solar luminosity. But we don't have an article on The coming climate apocalypse because it's a hyperbolic claim that lacks clear meaning.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: did you even read the article you provided as evidence? The content of the article, you provided, is not a hyperbolic claim. And for the title: "Apocalypse" (ἀποκάλυψις) is a Greek word meaning "revelation", "an unveiling or unfolding of things not previously known and which could not be known apart from the unveiling".; so by that meaning and by the meaning of something dreadful it fits. If your power has gone out &/or your home has burned down &/or you or your loved ones have been harmed or even killed; you might very well completely agree with the word choice in the title: i.e. still RS. X1\ (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I did. This is becoming uncivil. Please stop badgering me. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I've struck the only word I imagined you could find uncivil, and unbolded. I am disappointed to see you say you feel badgered. This is not about you, the wp:rsn thread is to determine the status of a source, preferably something resembling a consensus.

There ten eleven eighteen that fit "generally reliable", one that says Generally seems excellent quality, and your's which is not only not "generally unreliable" it is "Not reliable" (never reliable, so presumably closest to "deprecate"). "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and your comment is an extreme outlier. You have shown no backing evidence and your argument appears to be lacking in merit; which leads me to believe you either have personal animosity toward the source and have been unable to be objective, or you are here to be disruptive. Both would imply you are "not here". X1\ (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Corrected to "eleven". X1\ (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary. X1\ (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Corrected to "eighteen". X1\ (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, on Wikipedia, we're supposed to do more than glance at one headline when establishing the reliability of an entire source. The article itself is a well written opinion on the PG&E blackouts in California with a solid factual grounding. I suggest you change your !vote. Guy (help!) 22:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for all purposes - In 2019 alone, so far, this decade-old organization of more than 75 journalists has won dozens of journalism awards, including a Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing. Anyone who calls an organization for investigative journalism, much honored for its factual accuracy, as "obviously partisan" is betraying their own political bias — like those who dismiss such factual science as evolution as somehow "liberal." I don't even know how this isn't a WP:SNOWBALL discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please strike per WP:NPA. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's ad hominem, yes but still nothing that needs be struck out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Direct quote from WP:NPA -- "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" Adoring nanny (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the unsigned comment directly above uses "affiliation" correctly. What the commenter quotes refers to: "Well, he's a member of the ACLU / NRA / New York Yankees, so he's wrong." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Found and added signage missing from above. X1\ (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing that "betraying their own political bias" does not refer to a perceived affiliation. I believe it does, specifically perceived political affiliation. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No. I am not saying "Don't believe him because he's a Democrat" or "Don't believe him because he's a Republican." It is absolutely factual to say that anyone who claims the neutral ProPublica is "obviously partisan" is commenting based on their own personal views and not on objective reality.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per their Pulitzer Prize and otherwise incredible work. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable ProPublica is used extensively by news sources, it makes no sense to think PP itself to be just reliable in areas of expertise. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. I’ll respond to Mark in that while ProPublica typically practices investigative reporting, they’re similar to the AP in that they break the news, and outlets pick it up after, as you’ve noted. Also: when picking up an article outide their bureau, it’s subject to the same editorial control and vetting. This is fairly standard, and as far as I know, they’ve never had to issue a major retraction. As the evaluations of the journalistic community’s generally say about ProPublica: “this is a journal for journalists”. It has one of the highest calibers of reputation in journalism internationally. Republication is part of their standard business model. Lastly, it has no professed bias, as you claim. The founders were once asked whether their political leanings would affect the content, and you can clearly see their response in the article. Bolstering that, their reputation is generally regarded as just supplying good journalism. It shouldn’t matter matter whether they’re a 24 hour news television channel, or a newspaper that simply repeats the investigative journalism of others. They’re about as reliable as you get. It’s not a source that regurgitates the news, but breaks it. None of your objections are rooted in any policy I’ve ever read. As far as WP:DUE, I had no real opinion before, burn simply commented on the sourcing and your mid characterization of it. But given the multiple secondary sources that have started pouring out since, it’s clearly worth a few lines. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Symmachus Auxiliarus "it has no professed bias, as you claim" is disproven in my later quotes near the top of them professing such. Note the nature or cautions for WP RS from statements on mission "the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform" and Balance "investigative stories make an argument rather than just capture both sides of an issue" and POV "some point of view is baked into investigative stories". This is simply the nature of their doing exposes in Progressive topics, it is what they forthrightly declare and raise money to do. Similar to muckraking is a part of the classical Progressive Era. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. Highly reputable, Pulitzer Prize-winning publication. This is not a close call. Neutrality^talk 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes. Reputable, awards; there is nothing to assume publishing of "fake news". My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, exactly the things we look for in a high-quality source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - the Pulitzers they've earned certainly adds to their credentials as does the list of RS with whom they partner; however, my position about online RS in today's clickbait environment is that we should exercise caution, corroborate the material cited with other RS, and exercise strict adherence to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEWSORG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Moderate left of centre bias (so opinion pieces require evaluation) but excellent reputation for factual reporting. Founded in 2007 and has picked up a Pulitzer in five of the twelve years it's been running, including three out of the last four years. That's pretty impressive. Guy (help!) 22:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes Has won numerous awards for their factual reporting, countless other reliable sources frequently cite their work. --Jayron32 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable I would trust ProPublica or PBS before I trusted CNN or a major broadcast network. It is a very good source, possibly second only to Al Jazeera English. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable This is some of the best nonprofit, nonpartisan media which we have in the United States. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Bluerasberry, Agree, I'm surprised we're all voting "generally reliable." I would venture to say that if there was one media source worthy of an "always reliable," this would be it. Why it wasn't already listed, I think, exemplifies part of what's wrong with Wikipedia, is a good question. An excellent source.Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Dmehus: I would say "always reliable" also. I only said "generally" because the vote was set up in this way. The reason why it was not listed previously is because I do not think there even is a list, and also because Wikipedia is just starting to develop ways to determine the relative reliability of sources. I wish you would pass on the negativity against Wikipedia. I know the evaluations of reliability are thin here in wiki, but if you find someone who has done better to rate sources, you can always bring their evaluations here and we can adopt those as a starting point. Wikipedia's system may be poor but I think it is also the best the world has to offer in the free and open space, and at least we are developing a system. No one expected the recent fake news trend which started all these new conversations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Bluerasberry: Done. Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SNOWBALL close as "Generally reliable". François Robere (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - Only piling on because I thought I said this at the beginning, but I had just commented... :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for all purposes for its run of Pulitzer Prizes alone, and a snow close seems sensible. — Bilorv (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (ProPublica)

• ProPublica#Awards is rather impressive. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Context? Has this been challenged somewhere? What was it being used for? I've not seen treating PP as a source be controversial in the past. If it's been unclear, it would be helpful to link past discussions (plaintext mentions of archives doesn't do much more than a search bar would). If past threads have been clear, we can just add it to RSP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Specifically, the RfC was spawned by this comment, but I have seen other surprising comments during semi-random general browsing. I have generally thought of ProPublica as well-respected investigative journalism RS, and with impressive detail at that. But I don't generally follow them, and only recently for the first time looked at their homepage. Maybe I have only seen the best quality works, may be it is on an author by author basis? So I wanted other comments. If some consensus-ish discussion is reached here, then I can point other editors it for reference. X1\ (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's ridiculous. The nature of ProPublica's work is the journalism itself, not the publishing. Its reporting is highly visible not because people visit its website but because publications like The New York Times pick up the stories. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• It looks like their concern is WP:DUE, not WP:RS (although they're somewhat related.) There are publications whose reputation is so weighty that when they give significant attention to a subject it is almost automatically WP:DUE; then there are ones that lack that automatic weight but which still clearly pass WP:RS. Without regard to the question of which one ProPublica falls into (it's usually a much harder and more context-sensitive question to answer than whether a publication passes WP:RS), I don't think they're suggesting it's unreliable, so there's not much for WP:RSN to say. That sort of question usually goes to WP:NPOVN (and generally doesn't get an easy answer, because, again, it's tricky.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the concern was DUE -- whether ProPublica alone was enough WEIGHT to get an article into Presidency of Donald Trump. It was posted to the TALK within hours of going online. (I generally suggest NOT just doing a copy-paste of whatever was in the mornings feed, and a 48 hour waiting period for WEIGHT and more information to show up.) Since then a couple major venues seconded it, but of circa 25 major venues that's all so far. It also has some issues of being an esoteric statistic and being phrased as a comparison to Obama rather than an absolute metric or across longer time period, but mostly it just hasn't hit DUE for consideration yet. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: for the Archives;

132 = a PBS Frontline investigation, coupled with ProPublica, a journal for journalists, published by people who came from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. = i.e. among high-quality RSs.

178 = ProPublica used as an RS.

213 = News organizations using a third-party fact checking service = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

246 = Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale. = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

251 = from other reliable sources such as Propublica or the Guardian = ProPublica listed with other high-quality RSs.

263 = ProPublica has an expressed interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." = strong journalism quality, strong RS.

268 = ProPublica used as an RS.

X1\ (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ - again, nobody is saying they do not do some quality work, we're just saying by their own statements (such as this 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing."') they're whole goal and methods are crusading for Progressive topics by showing wrongdoing, so ... only going to show the numbers that advantage Progressive topics, and actually only show numbers in a way that makes things appear Wrong doing. They don't do balanced views or get responses or seek alternative explanations or show something going right even on the Progressive side, they just seek for the expose. For any external writer guest piece, I couldn't say it's the same quality of editorial control but would say it's still going to fit to the model of limited scope and POV. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting criteria, but none of it is relevant to the source's reliability, while seeming POV-violating as well.--Ronz (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• So, Markbassett you believe spotlighting of wrongdoing is only progressive politics? I strongly disagree. Can you provide RSs to back the claims you are making? X1\ (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ no I said that was spotlighting of wrong-doing for Progressive topics. (I.e. About Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues... they typically don’t spotlight wrongdoing for other concerns.) Investigative pieces seeking wrongdoing on Progressive topics are a description of how they’re focused. I have seen at least one piece other than ‘spotlighting of wrong-doing’, but just ONE seems rare. Feel free to try offering contrary evidence that most pieces are not exposes, or that most topics are not Progressive (or say Liberal), but I think you’re speaking contrary to obvious facts and their own self-declarations there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: why would you believe Immigration, Health care, Education... Civil rights, Criminal justice, Environment, Gender issues are "Progressive topics"? Donald Trump and his supporters would strongly disagree. X1\ (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Tbf that's not even evidence of bias, let alone unreliability. On the same note one could try to discredit e.g. a medical journal because it focuses on such a topic, and for the most part ignores a plethora of topics you haven't listed such as stamp collection and model trains. You could of course say that there exists a context of such sources focusing on this selection of topics being generally suspicious, but that would not be a statement of fact, but of politics. Daß Wölf 21:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:X1\ addendum, note the Progressive nature in reform and social topics (environment, Womens rights, FDA) with authors and journalists muckraking is basically that of the classic Progressive Era. Basically "Progressive" caries with it a Moral foundations theory framework of different topics, approaches, and criteria for seeing the world; one can have a debate a Conservative as a Liberal, and both POVs feel 'right'. "Progressive" does not mean "Democrat" -- it can be against "Liberal" (think recent infighting of branches of Democratic debates) and neither is necessarily Democratic in party. "Progresive" seems just one in the definition of terms, e.g. "Conservative" is not the opposite of "Liberal" or The Three Axis Political Spectrum and Political language is broken and we need to fix it. People might describe themselves as a mix, e.g. "socially progressive and fiscally conservative", and one can see "Blue Dog" democrats that are pragmatic, fiscally conservative, pro-defense, & appealing to mainstream values of the American public. ... "Progressive topics" is a descriptive, just go with it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Markbassett: Medium is considered generally unreliable. X1\ (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

off-topic banter

X1\, you beat me to it! It's a sad day when even defenders of the GOP and Trump recognize that an 'interest in fighting corruption "through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing"' is a "Progressive topic", rather than a conservative topic. It didn't used to be this way. It used to be (back in Eisenhower's day) that the GOP prided itself on exposing corruption, rather than covering it up. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Yes, exactly! I love how "fighting corruption" is somehow "Progressive." All investigative journalism fights corruption and criminality by shining a spotlight on it. Unless one is suggesting that allowing corruption is "Conservative," then one can't suggest that fighting corruption is "Progressive." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?

Please see the request for comment at § RfC: Quackwatch.

WP:SPS says: 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 in original)

Prior RSNB discussions

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Stephen Barrett "Why are we throwing skepticism out the window because of the specific wording of Wikipedia policy, when the obvious intent of Wikipedia's sourcing policies are to keep us citing independent, reliable sources instead of those with a vested interest in promoting their employers' products?" Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#QuackWatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (Mentions Quackwatch and whether a book criticizing Quackwatch is an SPS, but no discussion about Quackwatch being an SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Quackwatch etc (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery "WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine" but no actual discussion about whether Quackwatch is an SPS Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (Discussion about SPS in the last four comments of the thread) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 118#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 146#Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (No mention of SPS, but the article being discussed is a BLP) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 148#Quackwatch (No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223#Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (Discussion about Quackwatch, No mention of SPS) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 252#Climatefeedback.org (a climate science fact-checking website) "[Climatefeedback.org is] Not technically WP:SPS. In order to be "self-published", a website must be under the sole proprietorship of a single person or definable ideological group. This is not the case with this source which is simply a fact-checking website. Compare Snopes, TalkOrigins, or Quackwatch" Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal

Is Quackwatch a WP:SPS? Should it be excluded as a source on WP:BLPs? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends, no it should not be used (as long as it is an SPS per wp:sources for opinions about people, it could be used for critical analysis of their claims (but it would have to be their claims, not them).Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why are we starting this discussion when the discussion at BLPN is ongoing? GMG^talk 16:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And [[10]] and [[11]]. But this is (I think) a better venue as this is about RS policy and what constitutes an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a self-published source and should not, per WP:BLPSPS, be used in BLPs or as a source on living persons elsewhere. That includes not using it for their claims. If there are no RS discussing the claims, then don't include those claims. Otherwise, we're violating WP:DUE, then violating WP:BLPSPS to demolish the UNDUE additions. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As this is already being discussed at WP:BLPN#Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS? it's not a good idea to bring it here as well. I wonder what would happen if there was a big disagreement between the two forums? Doug Weller talk 19:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• To avoid the potential for conflicting results... I suggest we simply close this discussion, and invite everyone to participate at the discussion at BLPN. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. BLPN is clearly the wrong place to talk about whether a source is a SPS. I propose that we recognize that the BLPN discussion is in the wrong venue and make the move in the other direction, leaving a link. Please respond in the "Proposed move" section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• We've been having this exact discussion about this exact article for over a decade, for the exact same reason: Null demanding that QuackWatch be removed, issuing legal threats demanding that, and sending people here to argue for it. The conclusion is always the same: QuackWatch is a reliable source for discussion of quacks and quackery. Guy (help!) 23:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• What Guy says. ∯WBG^converse 05:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Then WP:RSPSOURCES needs to be changed, because it does not say that. So it is giving the wrong advice, and is misleading, thus this will not go away.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Quackwatch is an SPS. Yes it should be excluded as a source for BLPs because is not a reliable source for BLPs (and probably most everything else) per WP:BLPSPS. It is self-published and it appears to lack independent editorial control. WP:USEBYOTHERS is weak. It is cited by publishers like the New York Post, AlterNet, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time. Although less of a concern, there is no evidence that the editorial process is independent of the commercial interest of the site (referral income from medically related products/services). On background, the owner of Quackwatch is a Psychiatrist who has not practiced medicine for 26 years.[12] Even if this blog were not self published, the principle that, if something is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will have reported by other reliable sources, applies.- MrX 🖋 11:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Question - If the argument is that Quackwatch is SPS, and thus not appropriate as a source in a BLP... what about non-biographical articles about fringe medical practices or theories? Can we use it to say the practice or theory is “quackery”... but NOT use it to label the main proponent as “a quack” (etc). Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

To that point, if we had enough information for a standalone article on an fringe medical practices, that would 100% need to be supported by MEDRS-based sourcing (otherwise it would fail MEDRS). And to that end, if we are truly talking a fringe medical practice, the MEDRS sourcing is going to point that out, eliminating the need for QW, or at least no longer making it the only source to call it out. --Masem (t) 14:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is about BLP's only. There is no blanket ban on SPS's (as far as In know) for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok... now let’s explore the grey area: non-biographical sections contained within biographical articles. It is not uncommon for a BLP about fringe proponents to contain a section outlining their theories/practices. Can SPS be used in these sections? Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would (as we do about ourselves) comment on content not the proponent. So it could be used to critique specific ideas, but not to call them names.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this source should be used anywhere without attribution. I also don't think we should WP:LABEL people as quacks or things as quackery, and certainly never in Wikipedia's voice. - MrX 🖋 18:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be used with attribution.

If reliable sources label people "quacks", then we do so.

Labeling things "quackery" (or something similar, such as "pseudoscience") is often required per FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a content guideline, and as a guideline does not 'require' anything, it suggests.Dialectric (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch should not be used for biographical information where BLP applies. Quackwatch most certainly can be used in articles about a living person. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• While there may be some merit to limiting the use of SPS for talking about the person, experts can still be used for content about the person's actions and claims. QW and Barrett are such experts. BTW, keep in mind that much of the content at QW is not written by Barrett, so SPS does not apply. Those who appeal for blanket deprecation of QW are pretty clueless about the website and its content. This must be done on a case by case basis, just as with any other website. That is also the consensus in the many RfCs about QW. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It is a SPS and in any case its expertise is in fake medicine, not biographies. If an actor says they never get colds because they drink orange juice, then (depending on how they feel about them), tendentious editors will change the lead in their article to "actor and quack medicine advocate" and half the article will be about why vitamin C does not prevent colds. Besides, if information about an individual is ignored in mainstream media and reliable published books and articles, it lacks weight for inclusion in a BLP. TFD (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

Dictionary.com[13] A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot: One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse. A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public: Merriam Webster:[14] A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators The Free Dictionary:[15] A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied Collins Dictionary:[16] A conspiracy theory is a belief that a group of people are secretly trying to harm someone or achieve something. You usually use this term to suggest that you think this is unlikely. Lexico (Oxford):[17] A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. Your Dictionary:[18] Any theory that purports to explain something by ascribing it to collusion among powerful conspirators: a usually dismissive term implying that the theory is far-fetched, paranoid, etc. (Definition is from Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition) Wiktionary:[19] A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s] (Dismissive, derogatory) Hypothetical speculation that is commonly considered untrue or outlandish. Usage notes: The phrase conspiracy theory is sometimes used in an attempt to imply that hypothetical speculation is not worthy of serious consideration, usually with phrasing indicative of dismissal (e.g., "just a conspiracy theory"). However, any particular instance of use is not necessarily pejorative. Some consider it inappropriate to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in an attempt to dismissively discredit hypothetical speculation in any form. ...but of course we are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so please see: Britannica: [20] Conspiracy theory, an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small, powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy... The content of conspiracy theories is emotionally laden and its alleged discovery can be gratifying. The evidentiary standards for corroborating conspiracy theories is typically weak, and they are usually resistant to falsification. The survivability of conspiracy theories may be aided by psychological biases and by distrust of official sources. Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR):[21] A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is perfectly appropriate for articles on BLPs and is not really a SPS. It is peer reviewed. It is published by an organization with a reputation for accuracy. It deals with a topic area in which a lot of people are trying to promote themselves and provides a rare bit of balance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James, Quackwatch should be used for BLPs--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you are confused Quackwatch today with how Quackwatch operated 11 years ago. Today it isn't published by an organisation - it is fully owned by Steven Barrett. It is also not "peer reviewed" in the academic sense, but instead Barrett sometimes (and not always) has articles checked by an anonymous expert before he publishes them. It may well be a reliable source, but to say that articles written by Barrett, edited by Barrett and then posted to Barrett's own website by Barrett based on Barrett's decision to do so are anything other than self published is a bit of a stretch. - Bilby (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Describing Quackwatch as 'peer reviewed' threatens to degrade the concept of peer review. The site currently has no public peer review policy, editorial policy, or ombudsman; together, this typically indicates lower quality and reliability. Along with the indications that this is largely the work of Barrett himself with little outside input, describing this site as a SPS or personal blog seems more accurate than describing it as 'peer reviewed'. Dialectric (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not peer reviewed according to the Wikipedia article on Quackwatch. From the article (emphasis added): "input from advisors and help from volunteers, ... Many more have since volunteered, but advisor names are no longer listed. ... He said a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy." -- Timeshifter (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just want to point out that "use as a source on BLPs" is not the same as "use as a source about living persons". An SPS can be a reliable source on a BLP article if it is used to verify information not about a living person, but it cannot be a reliable source for any information about a living person even if the information is only mentioned in passing within a non-BLP article. The key is what information the source is used to support, not whether the source is on an article primarily about a living person. This distinction should be made clear, particularly if we are having future discussions or RfCs on this topic. feminist (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Quackwatch as a source on living person articles, is Quackwatch a SPS?

I wasn't aware of the BLPN discussion when I posted this here, but now that I know about it, let be say that BLPN is the wrong place to talk about whether a source is a SPS. I propose that we move this BLPN discussion here, the correct venue, leaving a link. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh who cares. That's bureaucratic silliness. Consensus is not dependent upon venue. GMG^talk 00:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is. Different venues attract editors with different interests and expertise. If you ask a question at BLPNB you get responses from people who are particularly interested in BLP issues. In this case there is nothing specifically related to BLPs to decide. Everyone agrees that if Quackwatch is an SPS then it must be excluded from BLPs, and everybody agrees that if Quackwatch is not an SPS then it is a reliable source that can be used on BLPs. The only question is whether Quackwatch is or is not a self-published source.

If you ask the same question at RSNB you get responses from people who are particularly interested in classifying sources, which is what we are trying to do here. Yes, there is considerable overlap in interests, but you can't ask a question about, say, paid editing at the No Original Research Noticeboard and expect that the answer will be the same as it would be if you posted the question at the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard where it belongs.

When you put a question in the wrong place, the editors who are best at answering that sort of question tend to miss it. So posting questions in the proper venue is important. There is an essay on this at Wikipedia:Use the right venue which says "If you try to start a discussion in the wrong place, it won't be seen by the right people" --Guy Macon (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You were not aware. Now you are aware. It is best to keep centralized discussion centralized. GMG^talk 02:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Centralization is good. I like centralization. I am perfectly willing to move the BLPNB thread here, but for some strange reason I suspect that you or someone else will object. I am NOT willing to close down a thread that is in the proper venue just because someone posted a similar question in an inappropriate venue earlier. I would also add that pretty much all of the previous conversations on this (see my list above) have been here on RSNB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the venue for discussing RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Far from bureaucratic silliness, there are multiple tangible benefits to discussing things in the places designated for them. I won't attempt to enumerate them here. Oh who cares. For starters, Guy Macon, Slatersteven, and me. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please move the two conversations to the RSNB? I would do it, but I am past my quota for being called a pedophile nazi bedwetter cabal leader for this month, and it is only the 4th... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved from BLPN

There has been a discussion about Quackwatch being used on articles for living people. [22]. User Bilby says Quackwatch should not be used on articles of living people because it is a self-published source [23], and has removed Quackwatch as a source from some articles.

What is the consensus on this? This is the first time I have seen someone describe Quackwatch as a self-published source. User Bilby says "Quackwatch is a self published and partisan source. While it is reliable on scientific matters, under BLP policy we are not allowed to use an SPS to make claims about a living person." Is this right or not? The problem is that Quackwatch is being used on hundreds of Wikipedia articles for living people. I would hate to see Quackwatch removed from these articles, as it would take a lot of time to find replacement references. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I will not comment on SPS, but will on "partisan", it may well be. The problem is that it is by experts in the fields it tackles. Thus I think that "partisan" is a non starter.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok if consensus has changed, but Quackwatch is listed on WP:RSP as "Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert". Barrett does have an advisory committee, but according to Barrett that committee numbers "1000's", so I assume that they don't have direct editoral control. It is fully owned by Steven Barrett, although about 11 years ago it was managed through a non-profit he set up. Barrett says that some (most?) articles are reviewed to check scientific claims, but not all articles are reviewed [24], and that news articles are not usually reviewed prior to publication. I checked the list of recent articles, and all are authored by Stephen Barrett. As far as I can tell, Barrett publishes it himself, writes the articles, and uses his community of advisors to check scientific claims, but ultimatly is the author and the one in editorial control.

From my reading, it is a self-published site that gets input from advisors and is written by a subject-matter expert, which seems in keeping with WP:RSP. On scientific issues it should continue to be seen as written by an expert and used under WP:PARITY, and as a respected expert Barrett's opinion on issues and people are valuable and worth mentioning. But in terms of factual statements about living people presented without attribution, I see it as a good quality self published source, but ultimately still self published. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

All news media are published by themselves SPS means the person writing it has also published it. Thus an article by Barrett on Quackwatch Would be an SPS, an article written by someone else published there would not be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

But we list is as an SPS, as such it is not (according to policy) admissible to use in a BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I have yet to find a recent article written solely by someone other than Barrett. No article listed under "recent articles" on the site was, but I'm open to the possibility that some are written by other people and would not, in that case, be self published. - Bilby (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Just on the above, I've found some articles with someone else as the author. So far all were published between 15 and 20 years ago, but in that sense those articles wouldn't be self published. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm uncertain why Quackwatch is being treated as an WP:SPS. However, assuming it is, my question is how strict the blanket prohibition on using reliable expert WP:SPS sources for BLPs is. I know there is a carve-out on WP:SPS for WP:ABOUTSELF (vexatious though it may be). Is this another place where there is an exception? No questioning that Quackwatch is published by experts. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We did have a series of RFCs about a year ago on this, with apparant consensus being that we don't want to make an exception to BLP for fringe topics [25]. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• My take on BLPSPS is to make sure that there is some type of editorial control on the source to make sure that this is not one person venting on a BLP without any serious fear of repercussions. The editorial control means that a serious accusation has been vetted to affirm (to the source's best knowledge) to be true or likely to be true. (That still might turn out wrong as recently happened with the NYTimes, but editorial control also means they redact statements and issue erratas to fix that). We assume that that editorial control does not exist at an SPS. (It's also why BLPSPS allows only the BLP's own SPS to be used to back claims about themselves and only about themselves, they are the only person they can talk with authority on).

So that question now turns to whether Quackwatch is an SPS, and while it seems to meet that, the fact that 1) it has a volunteer network of experts in the field to review quasiscience/medicine claims with the site owner then writing that information up, 2) does appear to have some type of process that while I would not call "editorial", is there to make sure that their volunteers are not slandering BLPs per [26], and 3) has often been cited in mainstream sources as a reasonably expert source, means to me that it should not immediately be taken as a BLPSPS, but I would strongly recommend not have it as the only source pointing out a BLP of quackery, because of the fact that most of the volunteer experts are anonymous at QW. I would find it hard that in relation to a BLP, QW would be the only such site. --Masem (t) 14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I take issue with removing Quackwatch because there is a larger picture here. If we start removing reliable skeptical websites like Quackwatch from Wikipedia because it is apparently a self-published source, then this will also effect other valid skeptical sources. Robert Todd Carroll owner of a website Skeptics Dictionary which is similar to his book The Skeptic's Dictionary. Have a little search for the Skeptics Dictionary (skepdic.com) on Wikipedia. The source has been used many times on articles for deceased and living people in relation to their pseudoscientific claims. Are you saying we should remove this source as well? Brian Dunning's Skeptoid website is also used many times on Wikipedia in regarding to living people's claims. I do not believe we should be removing any of these sources. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We have polices for a reason, and they apply to all. Ask to change policy, do not ignore it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So are you personally going to remove Quackwatch, Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptoid from hundreds of Wikipedia articles of living people? I think not! 81.147.137.6 (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mostly they won't be being used incorrectly so it won't be a concern. - Bilby (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's usually fine. Attribute it. Make sure it is about FRINGE claims. Take care with it's use. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• We've been through this before. Quackwatch is self-published, and self-published sources are not allowed on living persons per WP:BLPSPS, even if written by experts in the field as permitted by WP:SPS. (And note that "expert" means an expert in the field under discussion, not a generic scientist.) If you want to change the policy, please go to WT:BLP, but bear in mind that a relatively recent effort to change it failed. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• SarahSV, you forget that we are not discussing legitimate "fields" of scientific endeavor. You wrote: "'expert' means an expert in the field under discussion, not a generic scientist." If the field is a legitimate scientific "field", then that certainly applies, but the "field" of quackery and health fraud detection and exposure is a very different animal. The pseudoscientific "experts" in the "fields" of quackery they practice are sometimes simplistic true believers, but they are also often sneaky criminals.

To understand this, look at the endeavors to expose counterfeit money. The real expert is the trained federal agent (Barrett, Doc James, and other trained physicians and scientists), not the counterfeiter (Gary Null, Samuel Hahnemann, Hulda Clark, Max Gerson, etc.). They know the basic principles of science and can recognize BS when they see it. Experts like Barrett and James Randi take this to the next level. They have so much experience dealing with quackery that they also recognize the various types of tricks that quacks use in their claims and practices, tricks which can often fool the ordinary physician or scientist. So these people are experts in the "real thing" AND the "fake thing". It's true that "Training in identifying counterfeit currency begins with studying genuine money", but it goes much further, and that's why we can't depend on ordinary doctors as experts in quackery, and why Barrett's expertise is so valued by federal and consumer protection agencies. His books are valued classics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• You really need to think differently about this. While there may be some merit to limiting the use of SPS for talking about the person, experts can still be used for content about the person's actions and claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, the distinction between a person and that person's views is a distinction without a difference. Can you post two things here, please? First, can you post examples of Quackwatch articles not written by Barrett? Second, can you give examples of the "tricks which can often fool the ordinary physician or scientist" that you mention above, that only people like Barrett can spot? Finally, if as you say Quackwatch is used as a source by mainstream reliable sources, then we can use those sources instead. That's how we normally handle primary sources and SPS that we don't want to use directly. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• It should be treated as an SPS if the publication belongs to the single moderator (Stephen Barrett). However, some usage on BLP pages is fine, as on page Jim Laidler, where the subject (Laidler) has published something on Quackwatch. Besides, I do not see it used on many BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is being used on quite a few BLP pages. I just counted about 38 pages (that was only a few minutes looking). I think we are all in agreement that it can be used if Stephen Barrett is not the author of the said article. For example, one popular article on Quackwatch that has been used on BLP pages is Jack Raso's Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare. If Stephen Barrett is not the author and the said author is an expert, then there should be no problem using Quackwatch on BLP pages. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you check that many of these people are no longer living? If so, that could be checked, but a lot can depend on context. If this is clearly a defamatory claim by the moderator with regard to a living person, then yes, such claim should be removed per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

81.147.137.6, using Quackwatch as a source for living people is a policy violation. The only exception is if the author of the Quackwatch source is the subject of the BLP. That is the sole exception to BLPSPS, namely that you can be used as a source about yourself even if self-published. Otherwise no: not articles by Barrett or by anyone else. BLPSPS is part of a core content policy. Also pinging Bilby. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That was what the last RFC determined. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have the link to RFC or any previous conservations about this? Users still do not know what the consensus is on this even though you have explained it here, I didn't know about it either. It be worth making this more public so future users know about it because I am sure this will be raised again in the future. Thanks 81.147.137.6 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Desclaimer: I started to copyedit the Gary Null article which I do see is using Quackwatch as a source. I will not be editing sources on that article. However, use of Quackwatch in a BLP article is a policy violation. Especially, as editors, we have to diligent if we dislike the living person, do not respect him or her and worse. We must be the ones who are neutrally driven knowing Wikipedia is not the place to "pay back" the subject of the article, alert the reader, nor do we have the right to attempt to destroy a reputation. It's very, very simple. The source is not compliant. If there are other compliant sources for the same content why would we even consider a non-compliant source. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a long drawn out discussion below which I missed when I wrote this. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Break 1

Bilby, the key is in your words here: "But in terms of factual statements about living people presented without attribution, I see it as a good quality self published source, but ultimately still self published."

It should not be used "without attribution". Barrett's opinions are the opinions of a notable expert and can be used, but with attribution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Often QuackWatch is the best source on the subject in question, as good sources when it comes to alt med are often few and far between. If used it should of course be attributed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Doc James and BullRangifer: no self-published sources can be used about living persons. WP:BLPSPS is part of core content policy. Ignoring it may have legal implications for individual editors and for Wikipedia. It's not a question of attribution. It's whether there is an editorial process, a fact-checking process, a publisher willing and able to take legal responsibility. All those issues inform and curtail what organizations can publish about living persons. This editorial structure is entirely absent when it comes to SPS. That's why we don't allow them in BLPs, unless it's the BLP subject talking about themselves. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• The source is peer reviewed. It is published by Quackwatch. So not really self published. No different than using a paper published by Richard Horton in the Lancet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James interpretation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is owned and published by Barrett, so yes, if he publishes articles he wrote himself on a website that he owns and is the editor of, then he is self publishing. The Lancet is published by Elsevier, not Horton, and Elsevier in turn is owned by RELX. Lancet has a peer review process through which only 5% of papers are accepted, most of which are rejected in house and don't make it to the full peer review stage - if they do they are reviewed by at least three experts in the field. According to Barrett, Quackwatch articles may be checked by another person depending on the topic and how coinfident Barrett feels about the material, and most news articles undergo no peer review. I don't see that the two are comparable. - Bilby (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's right. Something published in The Lancet is not remotely comparable to something publishing on one's own website. See WP:RS. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• And even the WP:ABOUTSELF carve-out in WP:BLPSPS isn't carte-blanche if a self-published statement about a subject was seen as unduly self-serving. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would take that to mean about the person themselves, but would not apply it to other content in an article about the person, such as the work and claims of the person. If that is not clear in the policy, it should be made clear. We always handle content and person(s) in articles differently, just as we do in talk page discussions (discuss the content, not other editors). This is where we need to use some common sense.

As to legal liability, if we are REpublishing claims made on the internet, even false and libelous claims, we are covered by a legal ruling which involved Stephen Barrett himself (the irony!): See: Barrett v. Rosenthal. Only the original publisher can be sued. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are good sources when it comes to alt med few and far between? Could it be that the content is not notable (in which case policy says it should be excluded) or that more reputable publications don't want to attach their names to the kind of statements that QuackWatch makes? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources. This is the policy that enables us to cover these fringe topics. See my outdented comment below about this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This might be more an aside, but I'm getting the impression from those that really want to keep QW that there seems to be a need to make sure that WP calls out on people that are engages in pseudo-science/alternative medicine/etc. - the stuff at the FRINGES - to remind readers this stuff is FRINGEY. When there is clear scientific-based claims (MEDRS/SCIRS) to demonstrate the FRINGE, that's fine, but I'm reading between the lines here and it looks like there's a drive that even when the FRINGE factors aren't covered in MEDRS/SCIRS sources, that there's a need to make sure to call out the apparent FRINGE (eg in this case, using QW as the key source). I clearly understand that when there is something proven to be FRINGE by MEDRS/SCIRS sourcing that we make sure that that's well established to avoid giving readers the impression that the FRINGE may be true. But we seem to be dealing with cases here of suggested alternative medicine/etc. where subject-matter expert editors on WP can see the suggested science is FRINGY ("Eat nothing but chocolate to lose 50 lbs in a day!") but no appropriate RS has commented on that, outside of something like QW. At that point, is it really our place to try to make sure that this is identified as FRINGE, or should we be waiting for more sources to do that? I mean, we should be very wary of also including claims that are not backed by MEDRS sources, that's one thing. If a person is notable for this hypothetical chocolate diet, but we lack MEDRS to support it or refute it - outside QW - we may not be able to treat it as FRINGE and only as asserted claims. (Which to that end, UNDUE tells us it is inappropriate to go into excessive details about said claims). That is, we should consider what sourcing gives us to be able to distinguish between appropriately-sourced disproven FRINGE and yet-validated asserted claims, and from reading comments about, QW should only be the source making that distinction. --Masem (t) 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

If a Fringe source cannot be identified as fringe except through reference to Quackwatch or other WP:SPS sources, WP:FRINGE would suggest the page should be deleted. I know there's a strong sentiment against "wikipedia is silent on this issue" WRT quacks and pseudo-medical cons, but otoh, an encyclopedia is not a clearinghouse of all information everywhere, and not every quack needs an article here exposing their quackery. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that if the only facet a BLP is notable for is a yet-proven-or-disproven FRINGE concept like a fad diet, then we are better off not covering it per MEDRS. But there will be cases of people already notable for other things that then add in this type of fad diet or other PSCI concept to their resume, which gets covered in non-MEDRS reliable sources. Do we remain completely mum on that? I don't think we can, but we can keep the nonsense to a minimum by inline attribution and only making the very top level assertions. "Dr. Smith later introduced his all-chocolate diet, which he claimed helped to stimulate the body to consume fat and lose weight." -- and nothing else until at least some MEDRS stepped in to call it bad science. Using QW for that purpose seems wrong. --Masem (t) 14:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources often applies to the situations where QW is good to use. Many alternative medicine subjects are so fringe that they are ignored by peer reviewed and other mainstream sources, but QW and a few other RS will still examine and comment on them. This helps us stay true to our mission, which is to document the "sum total of human knowledge." Unfortunately pseudoscience, quackery, and scams are part of that reality, and we should not leave a hole in our coverage because the big name university sources don't comment on some of these fringe issues which are very notable in fringe sources we can't use, and which cause death and suffering to so many. QW serves us quite well by bringing a science-based mainstream POV magnifying glass to the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

But again per WP:V, if something is not covered by good RSes, we should not try to coerce "poor" sources to make that inclusion, and to me, that would include trying to disprove quack science. And if what Bilby says is true about QW being not seen as an RS from a previous RFC, then we can't QW as the only source disproving quack science without violating BLP. --Masem (t) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I'm not sure where they get the idea that "QW being not seen as an RS from a previous RFC". Most RfCs about QW have rated it a RS, sometimes to be used with caution, and sometimes to be attributed, but never an unreliable source we can't use. I suspect a misunderstanding or an exceptional situation due to a specific misuse of QW. No source is reliable in all situations, and all sources are unreliable in certain situations.

There is a lingering misunderstanding about QW created by an ArbCom case filed against me by a fringe medical person who came to Wikipedia with the sole purpose of attacking me. They were indeffed. The ArbCom decision contained some unfortunate wording which implied that QW was an unreliable source. Much later we got that wording changed to remove the slur. Follow the links here: User:BullRangifer#Vindicated_regarding_AE_case_and_Quackwatch!

QW is generally a RS for alternative medicine, fringe health claims, and quackery subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where the RFC that SarahSV/Bilby have mentioned is linked, and I think its necessary to see that to comment further. --Masem (t) 17:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Here the link from above to the RFC: [27]. The issue seems to be that a WP:SPS is not appropriate on a WP:BLP regardless of whether it is otherwise a WP:RS, with no consensus for an exception for WP:FRINGE topics. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I never knew about those RfCs. They were both withdrawn. A quick scan of the page shows that QW was only mentioned in a positive manner, but I may have missed something. The bottom line is that the RfCs were withdrawn, so the previous RfCs about QW still apply, and there is no exception made for BLPs. The same rules apply to QW as to all other RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the rule is that a RS that is a SPS cannot be used on a BLP. The same rule applies to QW. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The way I read that close and discussion, it basically means there's no concensus to "weaken" BLPSPS for FRINGE-related topics. Which is what I suspected and echos my point above about whether we are supposed actually call out fringy stuff that no real RS has actually called out fringe. And leaves the question if QW is an SPS or not. My guy from everything I read says "yes", but again, it can be used if other RSes have already called out the quackery. --Masem (t) 18:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

...are not allowed on living persons... @SlimVirgin:, you're the only person using that phrase. What does it mean? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

...cannot be used on a BLP. @Wallyfromdilbert:, you use similar wording. What does that mean? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SPS: 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. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The phrasing is awkward and ambiguous. You mean that such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria? --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, what do you find awkward about it? WP:BLPSPS says (bold in the original): "Avoid self-published sources: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I asked for clarification for what you wrote. Your response doesn't help in the slightest. Your phrasing isn't what I'd consider grammatically correct, but at best is awkward and ambiguous. Do you mean that such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria? --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I'm not sure what you mean. We're talking here about living people who have biographies on Wikipedia or who are mentioned in other articles. When writing about those people, we must not use self-published sources, unless the source was written by the person in question. In other words, if someone is writing about themselves, it does not matter whether the source was self-published, but otherwise it is not allowed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing that you used, that I quoted, was unclear. You've now clarified it to my satisfaction: Such sources cannot be used about a person who meets BLP criteria. If you'd like further clarification from me, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• QuackWatch is a reliable source, cited by government websites and other authorities. it is not solely the work of one person, and even if it was there is no blanket prohibition on use of self-published sources in biographies - if we applied a "no third party self-published sources" rule and decided that QuackWatch is self-published we would arrive at the absurd situation where Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal, since the reality-based community largely ignores him. We are being lectured on policy by User:Зенитная Самоходная Установка on the basis of their whopping 2,131 edits, and they came here because they read about this on Gary Null's website. Which is also where the earlier nontroversy was stirred up. Null tried to sue WMF to have this material removed a decade ago, the case was dismissed. He's recently started sending legal threats to editors. The cynic in me would think he has a publicity drive coming up and wants to purge Wikipedia of reality-based commentary on his activities.

M Quacks and charlatans hate QuackWatch. They have been demanding its removal from Wikipedia for as long as I've been here. The normal policy is to ignore them. I suggest we apply that now. Guy (help!) 23:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• JzG, Quackwatch is self-published. It's not a question of us deciding that. It's Stephen Barrett's website. Whether it's a single or group blog makes no difference. You write that without it "Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal". But can those claims not be ignored instead? I've noticed this a couple of times with Holocaust denial. Wikipedians add their claims in detail, then use self-published sources to demolish them, because no Holocaust historian has addressed the details they're writing about. But there's a reason they don't bother, just as there's a reason scientists don't bother to demolish the claims under discussion here. By reproducing them, we're arguably spreading them, then we need SPS to demolish them. Is there not a way of writing the bio with non-SPS reliable sources only, perhaps a much shorter version? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• So basically you want to make an ad hominem attack against me, and then argue that we need to disregard BLP policy because it's more important to right a great wrong by exposing quackery, than it is to uphold a high standard of integrity and accuracy when it comes to biographies. What about Blackstone's ratio. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• The difficulty lies in writing about ideas viewed as harmful when there are few sources. Do we let a bad idea stand (e.g. no one died at Sandy Hook or Jews did 911), or do we use whatever sources we can find to make clear they are false? With the two examples I've given, there are lots of sources, but when you go off the beaten track you find fewer. You're then left with an ethical dilemma of how to present the information fairly and accurately. People do the best they can. I'm not familiar with the subject of this BLP, and I deliberately haven't looked in any detail, because I'm trying to respond to the principle not the particular. But it's hard not to notice the wide range of topics he covers. It would be difficult to have developed expertise in all those areas. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• To me it seems like Quackwatch sits in a sort of gray area when it comes to being an SPS or not. However, I also think that policies, including WP:FRINGE, explicitly prohibit "the absurd situation where Null's claims could be repeated from his own mouth without rebuttal". FRINGE states: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories, such as sock puppetry in AfD discussions, are prohibited." and WP:BLPBALANCE: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all". By my reading, taken together the policies are pretty clear; if a fringe position has not generated enough notability to be covered by reliable sources, it has not generated enough reliability to warrant mentioning it in an article, as doing so so without rebuttal would certainly give the idea undue weight. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• SarahSV, you write: "But it's hard not to notice the wide range of topics he covers. It would be difficult to have developed expertise in all those areas." That's a red herring, as expertise in illegitimate topics is not necessary (even though he has it in many of them). You forget that we are not discussing legitimate "fields" of scientific endeavor. See my in depth response to you above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, when I wrote "It would be difficult to have developed expertise in all those areas", I was talking about the BLP subject. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes...? That ("those areas"...plural) is what I was talking about....the person(s) and their false claims. When that is your sole professional interest in life, it's easy to become familiar with the people who make the false claims, and the unscientific nature of the claims. It's not at all "difficult" for someone like Barrett to do that. Millions of other people also have great expertise over myriad topics in their special areas of interest. That's not an unusual claim. It's the nature of the beast for experts. They are supposed to be able to do what is "difficult" for non-experts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer, I think we're talking past each other. When I made my "difficult to have developed expertise" comment, I was talking about Null, not Barrett. For example, according to WP (I have not checked this), Null has expressed a view on the HIV virus. But he is not expert in that field. Ditto with many other claims. That was my sole point. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• SarahSV, Oh my! That changes everything. Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

So basically what's going to need to happen is that Gary Null meets Jimbo at a cocktail party and makes a compelling case to him that his biography unfairly portrays him as a quack and therefore needs to be drastically truncated or deleted. But maybe those two don't attend the same cocktail parties, so such a chance meeting wouldn't happen, and even if it did, it's not like Gary is a celebrity.

Isn't there a Wikipedia:BLP ombudsman around here? No? I guess Jimbo is the de facto BLP ombudsman, since he's the only one who really has the clout to go against the administrative establishment in cases like this. If you really want to ensure the highest standards for BLPs, there has to be someone with authority to take action even in the absence of community consensus to enforce the BLP rules; and that would have to either be someone appointed by the WMF, or some elected position, or someone designated by the ArbCom, or something. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's extremely unlikely. Null has in any case already tried to have this material removed through legal action and the case was dismissed. Guy (help!) 22:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, Guy is right. That is extremely unlikely to happen, especially from Jimbo:

Wikipedia does not cater to what Jimmy Wales calls "lunatic charlatans":

Quote: "No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn't." — Jimbo Wales, March 23, 2014

We do not allow advocacy of fringe points of view, so the fact that fringe believers don't like these articles shows that we must be doing something right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So are we now going to re-write wp:sources, because that is where people will go to check on a sources admissibility?Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well...QW does seem to be pretty unequivocally self-published. When I looked into it, I expected to find that it was a registered non-profit with some type of definite governance structure. Apparently it used to be, and they've now dissolved that bit in favor of being openly a personal website. So I'm curious to what extent we actually need to cite it. In the case of the first reference in Gary Null, as it turns out, we don't need to cite QW at all. We can instead cite a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper, who themselves quote Quackwatch verbatim. Voila. We actually improve the sourcing of the article by citing a secondary source, which presumably has vetted the SPS for relevance and accuracy.

The second citation, well it already has two books supporting it.

As for the third citation, hmm. Looks like we can instead cite Science-Based Medicine in their piece here. They actually do seem to be an established organization with a diverse board of editors and contributors, all of which seem to have a lot of fancy acronyms next to their names. A Yale clinical neurologist, a surgical oncologist, some pharmacy and anesthesiology. Seems to check out fairly well.

So I guess my question is, what bit of content are we actually arguing about?..the bit that is only supported by QW where no better source is available? GMG^talk 12:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That for me is the issue, why are we using an SPS when we do not need to, what function does it serve. It looks like a reverse of "I don't like it", and that seems to be it, Garry Null does not want us to use it so we must use it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't care at all about this Null fellow, and little about Quackwatch, but the integrity of Wikipedia behooves us to attempt to find sources better than just one man's website. (I should note that I do deprecate the usage of Quackwatch, as one man's website does not notability make.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

We can surely debate the merits of the principle behind WP:PARITY, and I surely have had occasion to do so. It's probably been a year or more since I needed to drop an RfC on the issue, something to do with blogs and external links IIRC, though I'd be hard pressed to even tell you what article it was about. But what we should be able to all agree on is that PARITY ought not be an excuse to use poor quality sources out of convenience rather than necessity. If we want to cite crappy sources out of convenience, well, RationalWiki is that-a-way, and this ain't it. GMG^talk 12:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A point to consider for those worried about FRINGE PSCI topics getting far too much coverage without the ability for using QW to call out its nonsense, in that WP:BLPSELFPUB exists too - excessive coverage of the details of a PSCI theory on a BLP would be "unduly self-serving". And even if there are normally-good RSes covering the PSI nonsense without calling out that nonsense (which becomes hard to believe), we can certain limit how much in the medical claim area is said by relying on WP:MEDRS to keep any non-peer reviewed claims - outside of high level summaries - out of these articles too. We can't call out quackery if we have to rely only on QW for that, but we can clearly limit how much of that quackery gets into WP. --Masem (t) 13:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No - Does not fit the definition. ∯WBG^converse 18:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Winged Blades of Godric, what definition are you using? Quackwatch is run and (it seems) written by one person. There's no professional editorial oversight, no one who can say (with authority) "No, we're not going to publish that on this website." SarahSV ^(talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• SarahSV, there is professional oversight, so your "No, we're not going to publish that on this website" statement is really bizarre and reveals you know little about the website. It's not a blog or a wiki. It's true that Barrett writes many of the articles, but there are probably more by other subject experts, and then there is also the fact that it's the largest database of documents, books, legal rulings, etc. on the subjects of medical history, quackery, health care scams, dubious practices, official government reports, reports by consumer protection agencies, etc., and much of that is only available at QW.

That massive amount of material is not written by Barrett. So if there is any question about SPS, it would only apply to articles written by Barrett, and you have no idea how many people helped gather that information, proofread, and give input, on those articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, there is no one who can say to Barrett, "no, we will not publish this on Quackwatch." If I'm wrong about that, and there is indeed an editor-in-chief and a publisher, and a staff that they control, please point them out. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV. That was not immediately clear to me from what you wrote: "There's no professional editorial oversight, no one who can say (with authority) "No, we're not going to publish that on this website."" It is correct that Barrett is the "Editor-in-Chief" at QW. He is the top "professional editorial oversight" at QW. Is there something wrong with that? Is that different than so many other websites and magazines where there is an Editor-in-Chief and a staff?

Even if he were the only author of all the content at QW (which is not the case by a long shot), he's still a recognized subject expert, and Wikipedia allows us to use such subject experts as sources in many situations, even if they write it on their own blog or other website format.

The relevant question here is whether we can use articles written by Barrett at QW (an SPS situation) in a BLP. (This MUST not be about QW as a source in a general and non-specific sense.) If there is any question about that SPS issue, then we should make it clear in the policy that this applies only to comments about the subject (person) of the BLP, not to the dubious claims they make, which are then described in their BLP article. It should be allowed that the subject expert, even a SPS, can be used for commenting on the person's claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• And, we might as well stop using Gorski's articles over SBM. ∯WBG^converse 05:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• SBM is published by the New England Skeptical Society, rather than Gorski, so I don't think that is a concern. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a thread over at RSN now, can we please not discuss this in half a dozen different forums?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, Quackwatch is not a reliable source for BLPs (and probably most everything else) per WP:BLPSPS. It is self-published and it appears to lack independent editorial control. WP:USEBYOTHERS is weak. It is cited by publishers like the New York Post, AlterNet, the Daily Beast, Fox News, and Time. Although less of a concern, there is no evidence that the editorial process is independent of the commercial interest of the site (referral income from medically related products/services). On background, the owner of Quackwatch is a Psychiatrist who has not practiced medicine for 26 years.[28] Even if this blog were not self published, the principle that, if something is noteworthy enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it will have reported by other reliable sources, applies.- MrX 🖋 11:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  and probably most everything else Consensus says it is a reliable source. You're not going to change minds by repeating strawman arguments. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you care to link to the RfC where consensus was established that this blog is a reliable source? I'll wait. - MrX 🖋 16:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Quackwatch_an_SPS_and_thus_not_allowed_as_a_source_on_BLPs? Collapsed at the top of this discussion are a list of past discussions on the topic of the reliablity of Quackwatch, based upon Barrett being an expert at identification and analysis of quackery. You'll see the "he's not practiced medicine" strawman repeatedly. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If your complaint is that his retirement 26 years ago was central to my argument, let me assure you, it was not. I have looked at the other discussions, and I not finding any consensus that would permit us to ignore our core content policies. If I've missed it, please point it out, otherwise I will assume that it doesn't exist.- MrX 🖋 17:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

My complaint is that this appears to be an IDHT situation. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I appreciate your input in the AmPol2 area. There you're an expert, but here you seem to be out of your depth and reveal little knowledge or understanding of QW and Barrett. QW is anything but a "blog". My comment above may enlighten you a bit. In fact, read this series of comments. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The only "oversight" documented on QW is a legal team (who aren't even named) to handle those potential issues. Barrett's team of volunteers are anonymous so we have no idea who they are. --Masem (t) 18:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Really? The only oversight documented on QW is a legal team?

"Are your articles peer-reviewed?"

"It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail. Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts. News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting. However, the review process does not stop when an article is published. Complaints or suggestions from readers may trigger additional review that results in modification of the original version."[29]

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Who are those that oversee them? What are their names? Note that I am not saying the guy's lying nor are what he is publishing incorrect... but in the context of BLPs (About a person or the ideas they have presented), we have an extremely high standard as an encyclopedia to avoid questionable sources that put doubt onto a person. I go back to the fact that if no one else but QW has commented on the quackery of a BLP's claim, that wouldn't be sufficient to include. It is one source without any of the rigor expected of MEDRS. But again, we also don't give that much space for the quackery in detail, as we do not allow unduly self-servicing material. The checks and balances are there without having to make the SPS QW as an RS. --Masem (t) 21:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, that's an interesting take, but it's mostly your unvalidated opinion wrapped in an ad hominem. Your linked comment is unsupported by evidence and raises more questions than it answers (Professional oversight by who? Articles by what subject matter experts, published where?) If you would care to advance an argument that this self-published website should be elevated to the status of a reliable source, then you have the onus to show that it fits within the framework of our long-established policies. In my mind, the best way to do that is to show that other reliable sources routinely cite it, that it's under some sort of independent (from the author) editorial control, and that it has a reputation for fact checking. - MrX 🖋 18:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, sorry about that, but I don't know any other way to say it. (I'll comment on your talk page, as this must not derail the discussion.)

The attempt here is not to "elevate", but to "demote". Even more specifically, this is about a SPS/BLP situation, not a general RS situation.

QW has a long-established general status (by numerous RfCs) as a RS here. Now we're discussing whether it is a BLP violation to use this SPS. I contend that this specific rule should only apply to comments about the BLP "person", but the SPS source can still be used for comments on that person's false claims in their BLP article. That distinction is not apparent in the BLP policy, and we need to fix that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Could you please link to one of those "numerous RfCs" establishing Quackwatch as a reliable source? I asked an editor the same thing a couple of hours ago and all I got in return was an insult. - MrX 🖋 20:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, this is from the top of Talk:Quackwatch:

Enjoy. There's a lot of stuff there, and I suspect there are other RfCs that are not included. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

None of those (old) discussions were closed, or indicative of a broad consensus as far as I can tell. Proper RfCs seek outside input. The 10 year old Arbcom amendment (which barely passed) only says "The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned;" That's way different than saying "Quackwwatch is a reliable source".- MrX 🖋 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So there are no proper RfCs by today's standards? Is that a problem for say RSP? --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. Perhaps you could restate the question.- MrX 🖋 11:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant if we simply work from the RSP entry which does not indicate broad consensus for general reliability. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, you wrote: "...only says "The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned;" That is not correct. Motion 1 (which you reference) did not pass. Only Motion 1:1 passed. (It's the very last words on that page.) QW had been considered a RS before that ArbCom, but ONE admin put ONE misleading word ("unreliable") in a header (a provenly false "finding of fact"), and that action placed the status quo acceptance of QW as a source into question. Unfortunately no one noticed the implications of that mistake at the time.

After that, friends of quackery kept pointing to the ArbCom decision as permission to remove the existing QW sources from articles. The Amendment fixed that problem by removing the word "unreliable" from the header, thus ensuring the existing status quo acceptance of QW as a RS would no longer be questioned. (Now you're questioning it?!) Now editors can't point to that ArbCom case and use it against QW. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification about the correct amendment. However, I would not regard it a declaration that that quackwatch is reliable per se. It doesn't really matter anyway, because in the ensuing ten years, I think we have trended toward more stringent sourcing requirements for controversial content, especially for BLPs. An RfC will be initiated soon, then we can calmly determine where consensus lies. - MrX 🖋 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I welcome such an RfC. It should be very specific, not about the general use of QW. Failure to limit that discussion will create a serious cluster fuck that will invalidate any decision. (A general RfC could occur separately and after the end of the specific RfC.)

It needs to focus specifically on the use of articles by Barrett at QW (SPS) in BLPs. It must recognize that this only applies to the articles written by Barrett at QW, not to the website as a whole, because most of the content at QW is not written by Barrett. It may appear so when one looks at many of the articles on the index page, but that's just the surface of a huge database of information and content authored by others. Let's get this right. Muddled RfCs are disruptive nightmares. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a workshop below. I believe we need to determine consensus about whether quackwatch is a reliable source and whether it's a self-published source (which actual seems self-evident). If his website is an index to other sources, then we should simply use the other sources, if they are reliable. Problem solved.- MrX 🖋 17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary to date

The questions discussed above can be summarised as:

• Is QuackWatch a WP:SPS;
• If QuackWatch is an SPS, would it be an appropriate source in Gary Null and other BLPs?.

Differences break down according to a divide: editors who normally specialise in WP:FRINGE mainly support use of QuackWatch, editors who mainly specialise in WP:BLP tend to oppose, and editors who are brought here by Gary Null firmly oppose.

Other known relevant facts: This has been under discussion for this specific article for many years. Gary Null sued WMF a decade ago to have QuackWatch removed as a source, the case was dismissed ([30]).This predates Jimbo's well-documented statement that our policies on this are "exactly correct" (WP:LUNATIC). Null has also issued legal threats in recent months against wikipedia editors (including me) in substantially similar form to his case against WMF in 2009, leading to the banning of Nealgreenfield, identified on-wiki as his legal representative, and likely sock Fela Watusi. One lead promoter of his agenda is Rome Viharo, self-identified on Wikipedia as Tumbleman. The Null article has seen other SPA / IP attempts at whitewashing over the years but the current press for change seems to be part of a new and concerted campaign by Null. Зенитная Самоходная Установка was attracted to this dispute by commentary from Gary Null. Concern has been expressed to some of us via email that Зенитная Самоходная Установка is a Tumbleman sock, this is not factored in, and we operate on the assumption of good faith at this point.

Past attempts to use Wikipedia to promote Gary Null resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own (delete and redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival (delete and redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaccine Nation (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIDS Inc. (no consensus, now a redirect). The fundamental problem is that the reality-based world pays very little attention to Null and his work, but he is widely perceived as a dangerous proponent of nonsense due to the pervasive nature of his claims (e.g. the fraudulent "death by medicine" trope that medical malpractice is the third leading cause of death in America and his promotion of the equally fraudulent Burzynski Clinic). He is considered significant by charlatans and skeptics, and pretty much nobody else, on the face of it. Guy (help!) 11:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

While Null's opinions and actions regarding Quackwatch are interesting, they are also largely irrelevant. Just as I would be opposed to Null dictating that we cannot use a source, I'm also opposed to him forcing us to use one. Ultimately, the questions are much simpler than anything to do with Null: Are articles by Barrett published in Quackwatch self published; is Quackwatch reliable; and what are the policy limitations on how Quackwatch can be used in BLPs? - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No his opinions are not irrelevant. This debate is happening because Null is insisting that QuackWatch be removed. I see no evidence of any involvement here other than that caused by his repeated attempts to remove QuackWatch, going right back to his failed legal case. QuackWatch has always been a source in this article, there's long-standing consensus that it's a reliable source, and the continual drama around QuackWatch on this and other articles is caused entirely by the repeated attempts by defenders of quackery to have it removed, necessitating endless relitigation based on exactly the same facts - aka "keep asking until you get the answer you want".

We should know, at root, who's asking for a thing, and in the end it always turns out to be the same: proxies for Null. It's not a new request it's a repeat of the same request that's been consistently rejected for over a decade. Guy (help!) 12:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As you may recall, the debate started because I replaced some Quackwatch references on List of food faddists with non-self published sources. It had nothing to do with Null when we started this. - Bilby (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As you may recall, WWI started because Gavrilo Princip assassinated the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. However this started, it wasn't long before Gary Null fans jumped in, then the regulars at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard responded, then we were off to the races. Also whether Quackwatch is or is not a SPS is the question we are discussing, so please don't beg the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

*Bismark anxiously looks at the camera and slowly looks away.* GMG^talk 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I'm the one asking to keep this focused on whether or not it is an SPS, rather rthan try and bring Null into the issue. - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The consensus as summarized at RSP is Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert...

From my perspective, Quackwatch is fine for information identifying and addressing FRINGE claims in articles. BLP has nothing to do with it. SPS has nothing to do with it. Quackwatch is a useful source for a skeptical POV to address FRINGE issues when no better sources are available. (It's fine in/on/within a BLP article when used properly.)

Quackwatch should not be used for BLP information. (It should not be used about a person that meets BLP criteria.) --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I listed all previous RSNB discussion in the collapsed list Prior RSNB discussions at the top of this thread. Please tell me which one suports your claim "The consensus as summarized at RSP [Is this different from RSNB?] is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I linked the RSP entry, which is supposed to summarize all discussions. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Brain Fart. For some reason I temporarily lost all memory of that page. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

As I have said, until it is removed form out list of sources as an SPS it is an SPS and thus cannot be used for information or opinion about living people. It can be used to say "Garry Nulls theories are quackery" It cannot be used to say "Garry Null is a quack". If (however) we now find it is not an SPS the question is moot, and our page on perennial sources needs changing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#SPS now says "Quackwatch is a self-published source (disputed)" and will say so until we have reached a consensus.

I suspect that we may end up with an RfC on this, but I beg anyone considering posting an RfC to post a pre-RFC and gathering comments on the RfC wording and the proposed location for posting it first. We have had far too many cases recently where someone posts an RfC and someone else immediately responds by claiming (rightly or wrongly) that the RfC is invalid, deceptively worded, posted in the wrong place, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Workshop on Quackwatch RfC

Superseded by § Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC.

Since there is disagreement over multiple aspects of Quackwatch, I agree that an RfC is the best path forward. The RfC should determine community consensus on these three factors:

1. Whether Quackwatch is generally reliable in its areas of expertise (i.e. alternative medicine and/or quackery)
2. Whether Quackwatch is a self-published source (and restricted from being used as a third-party source for living persons)
3. Whether Quackwatch is a biased or opinionated source

Here is one way the RfC could be structured:

RfC format suggestion by Newslinger

RfC: Quackwatch This RfC asks editors three questions about Quackwatch: Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery? Is Quackwatch a self-published source? Is Quackwatch a biased or opinionated source? (Insert signature here) Context matters: For each of these questions, please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of Quackwatch's content, such as the author(s), topic, and date of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. Generally reliable? Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery? Survey (Generally reliable?) Discussion (Generally reliable?) List of past noticeboard discussions on Quackwatch's reliability: QuackWatch (2007) Quackwatch (2007) Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (2008) Quackwatch (2008) Quackwatch etc (2008) Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery (2009) How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (2010) Quackwatch (2012) Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (2013) Quackwatch (2013) Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (2017) Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs? (2019) Additional noticeboard discussion on Stephen Barrett: Stephen Barrett (2007) Two additional discussions at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine): Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (2015) Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline (2015) An Arbitration Committee case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal (2007) Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal (2009) Self-published? Is Quackwatch a self-published source? Survey (Self-published?) Discussion (Self-published?) Note: Self-published sources should not be used as third-party sources for living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. Biased or opinionated? Is Quackwatch a biased or opinionated source? Survey (Biased or opinionated?) Discussion (Biased or opinionated?) Note: Biased or opinionated sources are typically used with in-text attribution.

Please feel free to adapt this into your own version, or suggest something different altogether. — Newslinger talk 05:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Just tossing out ideas here; should there be urging readers to actually read the polices by adding language like "...as defined at WP:GREL and WP:RS" instead of just linking to the policies? Or maybe a sentence at the top explicitly asking them to do that? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Would this work?

Questions with explicit links to policies and guidelines
Is Quackwatch a generally (WP:GREL) reliable source (WP:RS) for alternative medicine and quackery? Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? Is Quackwatch a biased or opinionated source (WP:BIASED)?

— Newslinger talk 07:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Great! The RfC is ready to go. If any other editors have suggestions or objections, please share them as soon as possible. — Newslinger talk 07:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely support separate survey and discussion subsections for each question. It's Be Kind To Closers Month! ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, no, it's not ready at all. Put on the brakes. See my comment at the bottom. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say three is irrelevant as it is not an RS restriction. It will just generate debate that will not in any way have any real benefit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Three is irrelevant. Don't do it. That rabbit hole leads to madness. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest dropping #3 per Slatersteven. It would only tend to complicate the RfC. Other than that, I think this wording would be the most wworkable:

1. Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery?
2. Is Quackwatch a self-published source?

I also agree with Mandruss about separate survey and discussion sections, and enforce it mercilessly. - MrX 🖋 11:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

About question #3: it's common for the perennial sources list to note when a source is perceived to be biased or opinionated. A quick browser search in WP:RSP reveals 35 instances of the word biased and 19 instances of the word partisan. Right now, WP:RSP § Quackwatch states: "Some editors consider Quackwatch a partisan source (disputed), citing a 2007 Arbitration Committee finding." Question #3 would definitively resolve the issue of whether the RSP entry should mention perceived bias/partisanship at all, and the compartmentalized format of the RfC should prevent any disagreements on #3 from affecting the discussions on the other two questions. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A key part of the ArbCom finding was that it was partisan. I'm open to letting that sit, but I wouldn't want to discount that because it didn't get asked here.- Bilby (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Concur Q3 is irrelevant. We are allowed to use biased sources. Whether QW is biased or opinionated is neither here nor there. Simply: is it self-published, is it reliable, is it usable for BLPs? Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree also that Q3 is not needed. Additionally, we need to be sure we steer clear of the concept of "BLPs" or "BLP pages" as things for which SPS's cannot be used. BLP policy applies to biographical informational wherever it is. Some content on a BLP page is not biographical (for which a SPS may be okay); conversely biographical content can occur in articles which are not biographies (and so an SPS would not be okay). For this reason I think Q2 should simply be "Is Quackwatch a self-published source", as WP:BLPSPS would obviously then apply. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well put. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar, just could not quite put my finger on what it was. I kept separating the two out and then came back to "but its not two questions".Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a problem with "Q2 should simply be 'Is Quackwatch a SPS', as BLPSPS would obviously then apply." My problem is the lack of obviousness to those who !vote on the RfC and to those who apply the result of the RfC. It is far from obvious to someone who doesn't deal with this sort of thing all of the time that a support !vote for "Quackwatch is a SPS" is also a support vote for "Quackwatch cannot be used as a source for calling a obvious Quack a Quack." I think that the two things should be explicitly connected so that every one knows what they are !voting for/against. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That would then create a problem where we are running an RFC to see if policy should apply to a policy violation. I don't see that as a viable approach. If there is a problem with the policy, the policy needs to be changed. - Bilby (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, we need to be careful with our language. Writing that "Quackwatch cannot be used as a source for calling a obvious Quack a Quack." is an example of (mis)use that turns people off, turns them against QW, and is also inaccurate. We would never use QW in that manner. QW doesn't even use the word "quack" about people, AFAIK. Its content is much more nuanced. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, it's partisan in the same way we are: it is biased towards empirically established fact and against woo. The entire universe is biased in that way. Guy (help!) 17:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I welcome a very specific RfC on the use of articles by Barrett at QW (SPS) in BLPs. Don't blend it with an RfC about the general use of QW. Failure to limit that discussion will create a serious cluster fuck that will invalidate any decision. (A general RfC could occur separately and after the end of the specific RfC.)

It must recognize that this SPS/BLP issue only applies to the articles written by Barrett at QW, not to the website as a whole, because most of the content at QW is not written by Barrett. It may appear so when one looks at many of the articles on the index page, but that's just the surface of a huge database of information and content authored by others. Let's get this right. Muddled RfCs are disruptive nightmares. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I am annoyed by the fact that this entire debate has been prompted by a quack sending his followers here often enough that eventually a few good editors who err on the side of fairness towards cranks and charlatans (IMO sometimes to excess) have been sucked in. We can't have articles on quacks and charlatans that exclude the leading reality-based sources on quackery. Guy (help!) 17:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Problom is policy says we do not use SPS for information about BLP, Null is alive, we list QW as an SPS. So we must either change the policy on using SPS for BLP's or declare that QW is not an SPS. What we should not do is create special rules for Mr Null, one way or the other.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree that we either comply with our own policies or adjust them, but ignoring a policy doesn't seem appropriate. If there are places where a source is really needed an RFC specific to that article and content is a way to go, or as has been suggested here, a general RFC. I'm not sure suggestions editors are being sucked in is a fair assessment of editors complying with policy. I know nothing about Null and don't care to know but pushing aside our own policies can be a precedent we don't want to set. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As the one who - unfortunately - triggered this, it had nothing to do with Null, and wasn't even in relation to claims about Null. It was a straight out case of using an apparant SPS for claims about living people on a different article. This focus on Null is not relevant. - Bilby (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. My comment was a disclaimer since I eventually noticed in my copy editing of the Null article that Quackwatch was source used and that Null was mentioned here. The use of any self published source can be a issue so no worries about bringing up a topic that generates discussion. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you are correct. We need to revise the policy to make it apply only to comments about the "person" (subject of the BLP), not to their false claims. That would resolve this problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Since neither the ArbCom case or any previous RfCs about Quackwatch as a RS have ever mentioned this conflict between the BLP/SPS issue and how we use QW and other RS in these types of fringe articles, I wonder if that BLP policy language is of later date. Does anyone know? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We had a series of RFCs a year ago led by Jytdog about this issue, arguing that we should make an exception to BLPSPS and reword it to allow the use of self published sources on fringe BLPs. The first was withdrawn and restarted by Jytdog, the second was closed by Jytdog when it was clear that the proposal was not going to get consensus. They are archived here. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the second draft of the RfC continues at § Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Straw polls for Quackwatch RfC

Let's determine what the RfC should ask, and how the questions should be phrased. Feel free to add more polls to cover any other areas of disagreement. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Bias/partisanship

Should the RfC ask a question on whether Quackwatch is a biased or opinionated source? — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Bias/partisanship)

• Yes. It's common for the perennial sources list to indicate when a source is biased or opinionated. (Source descriptions in the list contain the word biased 35 times and the word partisan 19 times.) I'm not fond of linking to the 2007 Arbitration Committee finding, since ArbCom's remit covers disputes on user conduct, not article content. This question allows the community to determine whether Quackwatch should be classified this way. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. It's a daft question that has a nebulous relation to the WP:PAGs. So if, for example, a source is "biased" in favour of medical evidence and against fraudulent claims what does that mean? Probably, that we should use it. Just saying a source is "biased" means little – I'd like to know what problem people think an answer to this question solves. Alexbrn (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The current situation is that we use the ArbCom description. That may or may not still hold, but it is worth asking to see if the consenus now is different from ArbCom's, rather than staying with the older finding as the default. - Bilby (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No - I don't think it would help in the determination of if the source is reliable, and if it is an SPS. Remember, someone has to close this future mess.- MrX 🖋 14:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. Such sources are expressly allowed by our NPOV policy. To then single out a source and label it, in Wikipedia's voice, as "biased" or "partisan" appears to be a dissing, negative, judgment. That's wrong.

If QW were extremely partisan and biased in the sense that it lacked reliability, it would be justifiable to express caution, but QW is just the opposite. It is biased in the way a source should be. It is biased toward truth and scientific facts, toward ethical marketing, toward consumer protection, and against false claims. Is any of that a bad thing? It has the same bias toward truth held by fact-checkers. It is the oldest and most notable fact-checker of health care claims. We should not do anything to make that look like a bad thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. Accusations like "Quackwatch is biased" and of course the classic "Wikipedia is Biased" are what motivated my to create the essay at WP:GOODBIAS. Wikipedia really is biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls in a fundamental way. We say that, when it comes to cleaning laundry, laundry detergent works and laundry balls don't. Unlike some of the other areas covered in my essay, the makers of laundry balls have yet to send an army of shills to Wikipedia to protest about our anti-laundry-ball bias, and we haven't been sued over our coverage of the topic, but it would not surprise me if they did. As far as I can tell, Quackwatch has not covered laundry balls (The Straight Dope has[31]), but if they ever do I am confidant that they will share our anti-laundry-ball bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. As long as the go-to is the ArbCom decision, which should not be used at all per the scope of ArbCom. My bringing it up at RSP was because of this scope. Misuse of the decision has caused ongoing problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, this is getting a bit out in the weeds. Reliability is not a measure of bias, nor visa versa. It just so happens that many of the sources we've outright depreciated also happen to be hyper-partisan. That may be because these sources have consciously sacrificed factual accuracy in service to political objectives (no way Orwell hadn't read his Machiavelli after all), or (my personal opinion) it may be that people who are hyper-partisan tend to be hyper-partisan because they're not very good critical thinkers to begin with. But it is perfectly acceptable for two reasonable people to look at the same sets of facts and draw different conclusions; that's in the neighborhood of bias. It is not acceptable for one of them to fudge the facts to support the opinion they've already made their mind up about. That's reliability. Besides that, things like pseudo-science and conspiracies are not a partisan issue. There are as many essential-oil-touting, crystal-wearing, big-pharma-fearing, new-age hippies on the left, as there are bigfoot-hunting, deep-state-fearing, race-obsessed country bumpkins on the right. Gullible ignorant people come in all shapes and sizes.
  I couldn't care less about ArbCom's opinion on the matter. The pontifications of ArbCom are wholly irrelevant to the editorial decision making process, whether they think so or not. GMG^talk 18:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Background for the ArbCom.... As the subject/victim of that ArbCom case, I know a bit about its background and why comments about "content" made their way into the wording, even though that should not have happened. One of the Arbitrators is a supporter of certain forms of quackery, and therefore skeptical of QW. He should have recused himself, but he didn't. On the contrary! Based only on his own quack-friendly biases and the accusations of pushers of quackery, and before any evidence was presented, he wrote up the list of "findings", some of which were BS, but they remained unchanged. He basically set me up right from the start. Fortunately other editors mounted a very strong defense. Those BS "findings" are the ones which have caused problems for QW. As a defrocked lawyer, that Arbitrator should have known better. "Findings" are written after looking at the evidence, not just the accusations by pushers of quackery. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• No QuackWatch represents a scientific / evidence based perspective. It is not biased but often analysis sources that are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Bias/partisanship)

• Note that the phrase biased or opinionated is a synonym for the term partisan, and both WP:BIASED and WP:PARTISAN point to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources. The only effect of designating a source as biased or opinionated is that editors are advised to use in-text attribution for that source. Sources are not considered less reliable based on bias alone, if it does not affect the source's reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. — Newslinger talk 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: The "problem" solved by this question is that it's unclear whether in-text attribution is recommended when using Quackwatch. I suppose the question could directly ask whether in-text attribution should be used, rather than ask whether Quackwatch is biased/partisan. (The effects are the same.) — Newslinger talk 07:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how that would apply, and think we're in danger of constructing a bureaucratic decision tree which works against the WP:PAGs. So, for example, if a source is "biased" in favour of medical evidence (a kind of WP:GOODBIAS perhaps) attributing its comments would violate NPOV as described in WP:ASF. Would we really have to say "According to Steven Barrett, squirting coffee up your bum will not stop the progression of cancer"? If we are to say QW is "biased" we would need to say how exactly it is biased and what the consequence of that "bias" is (not necessarily that attribution is required). I'd prefer to fall back on the existing WP:PAGs which deal with all of this adequately already. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BIASED, a section of the reliable sources guideline, states that "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate". Your comment indicates that you do not consider in-text attribution necessary for uses of Quackwatch in many cases, and you can express that opinion in an RfC asking either the proposed question on bias/partisanship or a question on in-text attribution. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Asking whether QW should always be attributed would be a different question - an even more daft one. We have guidance on when attribution is necessary already, and it's more nuanced than this question would suggest. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• The question would not ask whether Quackwatch "should always be attributed". — Newslinger talk 08:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Let me approach this from another angle. A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding described Quackwatch as "unreliable" and "partisan". A 2009 motion modified the 2007 finding: it no longer describes Quackwatch as "unreliable", but still describes it as "partisan". However, the arbitration policy specifically states that "The Committee does not rule on content". An RfC question on bias/partisanship would allow the community to take over the determination of whether Quackwatch is "partisan" from ArbCom, since content disputes should be handled by the community at large. — Newslinger talk 07:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Arbcom does not legislate on content (let alone a committee of 12 years ago). So this is not a problem that needs solving. Saying a source is "partisan" absent of context is pretty much meaningless. Alexbrn (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Editors have been referring to the ArbCom finding in past discussions (2007, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2015). Although the ArbCom finding doesn't directly apply to content discussions, the finding's use of the word "partisan" has a real impact on editors who evaluate specific cases of how Quackwatch should be used in articles. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's a negative impact, making what is a good bias appear to be a negative thing. We must not perpetuate the problematic nature of that ArbCom. Read the comment I just made about the background for that ArbCom. Then you'll understand why we should distance ourselves from it and that "biased" and "partisan" wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia RSs can be non-neutral in tone. However, I believe the real question is whether a RS is reliable for the content it references as well as being verifiable. While Quackwatch presents opinions from multiple authors, I don't see that content has oversight from a board of reviewers, specifically experts in the particular areas they are writing about. Verifiability states sources must be "attributable to reliable, published sources." Quackwatch is attributable to single persons with no apparent oversight which is not a publishing model. WP requires that we look at the quality of the publication as well as the author. As well, when writing about health related subjects MEDRS must come into play. Right? The difficulty which has been mentioned several times in this discussion is how to source fringe-to-the mainstream content, especially health related content.

Possibly the question we should be asking is, is Quackwatch verifiable? Then we have to ask, how do we include content for which there is no verifiable reliable sourcing. Or do we? My suspicion is that these days we are likely to find sources which are verifiable and reliable even for non-mainstream sources and can bypass Quackwatch for these better sources.

RS are only reliable per the content they are referencing; editors, though, have the right to bypass on an individual basis, with consensus, policy. What this RfC seems to asking for is the carte blanche use of this one source in any situation. I'm not sure that's something we can agree to for any source let alone one that is not verifiable or reliable. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The question "Is Quackwatch verifiable?" is essentially the opposite of the question "Is Quackwatch a self-published source?", since WP:SPS is a part of WP:V (although WP:SPS also contains an exception for subject-matter experts). I believe the questions proposed in the straw poll below, § Self-published status of authors, give you an opportunity to address concerns with Quackwatch's verifiability. I'll start another straw poll on a question about Quackwatch's general reliability, which will hopefully get to the center of your "carte blanche" concern. — Newslinger talk 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The straw poll is at § General reliability. — Newslinger talk 04:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. So are we also going to label all sources one inch to the left and right of center as biased or opinionated, because that's the nature of the beast? Few sources are totally fact-based and unbiasd. That's a very rare thing. Do you see the consequences of us dissing, in Wikipedia's voice, a source? That's what we'd be doing. That's not right. We should leave that type of commentary to RS we use in articles, but not here.

QW is biased toward the scientific POV, ethical behavior in medicine, and toward consumer protection, and that is a good thing, but our labeling it as "biased" makes it look like a bad thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) is labeled as biased or opinionated because it's an advocacy group, but there is still consensus that it's generally reliable. The perennial sources list tries to measure bias and reliability independently. — Newslinger talk 03:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my comment. "Wikipedia RSs can be non-neutral in tone." That is, bias and opinionated sources can be acceptable sources. I'm not discussing bias. I am asking whether sources that are not verifiable or reliable be used carte blanche. This has to do with oversight as in publication and author quality the usual ways we discern the quality of publication and so oversight. I am also suggesting we have a problem with writing articles where fringe to the mainstream sources and content may be necessary to create accurate content. We can solve that problem with individual consensus for specific sources, by bypassing lesser sources for better sources for the problematic content, or something else no one has suggested yet. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're responding to me, my previous comment was actually a response to BullRangifer. I'll respond to you above. — Newslinger talk 03:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Fixed in Special:Diff/924821657. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarifying for BullRangifer. The indents are a bit confused. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Scope of arbitration: In his !vote above, Bilby says:

"The current situation is that we use the ArbCom description. That may or may not still hold, but it is worth asking to see if the consensus now is different from ArbCom's, rather than staying with the older finding as the default".

This appears to be a direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration, which says:

"The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed, and will make rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), so users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions. It will not do so".

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Bilby's view is probably coloured by his long-term work ensuring that articles on antivaxers and other charlatans are as fair to them as humanly possible. In that context, excluding QW from biographies would be a boon. It's a valid mission. I personally think he goes too far, but that's one of those things on which reasonable people can differ. Guy (help!) 12:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Having bias is not a consideration in whether something is an RS. Having an extreme bias is where there could be a case of asking "are they so biased as to be manipulating facts to their liking?" which would then lead to questions on reliability, but it is still not directly due to having a bias. QW's only bias is that they are against bogus claims of alternative medicine and the like, which is not an extreme position, so bias really isn't a question here. --Masem (t) 14:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Self-published status of authors

How should the RfC ask whether Quackwatch is a self-published source? — Newslinger talk 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option 1: The RfC should ask one question that applies to Quackwatch as a whole, e.g. "Is Quackwatch a self-published source?".
• Option 2: The RfC should ask two separate questions: one that applies to Stephen Barrett and one that applies to other authors published in Quackwatch, e.g. "Are articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch self-published sources?" and "Are articles written by people other than Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch self-published sources?".
• Option 2A: The RfC should ask one question that applies only to Stephen Barrett, e.g. "Are articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch self-published sources?".
• Option 3: The RfC should not ask any questions about whether Quackwatch is a self-published source.

Feel free to add other options to the list above.

Survey (Self-published status of authors)

• Option 2A. It is only Barrett's articles which meet the definition of SPS at QW. No other authors meet that definition. The idea of two separate questions is a bad idea with no legitimacy found in the definition of SPS, unless someone can find an exceptional example. No rule is necessary for such an exception, as we always use QW on a case-by-case basis anyway, and that's when we deal with exceptional cases. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. If we are going to be reductive, and determine reliability sans context, we should be properly so. The question as to whether there is any real editorial oversight of material published by QW, or whether it is essentially "user-generated", is not limited to only material authored by Barrett. - Ryk72 ^talk 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• That is not the remit of the proposed RfC. The discussions we have been having are specifically about the use of QW as an SPS in BLP subjects and articles. A general RfC on QW as a whole is another matter and these two should not be mixed.

Several RfCs have already ruled that QW is generally a RS, and therefore such an RfC is not necessary as nothing has changed since then.

Also, it is not "user generated". It is not a blog or wiki.

Reliability is never determined sans context. The suitability of every single RS we use is judged by the context in which it will be used, and that also applies to QW. It is not special in that regard. All previous RfCs have determined that it, like all other RS, should be used on a case-by-case basis. Not even the most notable and best RS are reliable in all instances, and even blacklisted sources are considered RS in very limited and specific situations. Context is always a factor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, WP:RSP and related discussions (of which this is one) attempt to codify "reliability" (broadly construed; perhaps "usability" is better in this context?) of sources without regard to context or specific use of those sources. I am as yet far from convinced that this is advantageous to the purpose of building an encyclopaedia aligned to the WP:5P; but if that's what we're going to do, we should do it right. And if we're examining the self-published nature of QW, which is about effective editorial checks & balances or lack thereof, we should not artificially limit that to QW material written by Barrett in the RfC question itself. The mileage of individual Wikipedians may, of course, vary. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and think WP:RSP is a (bad) attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. It's not part of the WP:PAGs so can be safely disregarded but might lead less clueful editors astray. I would favour its deletion, frankly. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think it's a net negative, you're welcome to nominate it for deletion at any time. The page is unlikely to be deleted considering the community support in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources? and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60 § RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?. Proponents of fringe and conspiracy theories would appreciate the deletion of the list. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As yet, I'm agnostic. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option 2 If for no other reason than to ensure every option gets a hearing. I do not know enough about QW to make a clear judgement on whether it is generally (other then specifically in relation to Barrett) an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. People aren't going to just say yes or no - if they want to qualify their statement, they will when they make it. - Bilby (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 - There is no valid reason to pay any attention to articles from other sources that he re-publishes. Just use the other sources (if they are reliable). - MrX 🖋 11:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1 Any original reporting at QW should be reviewed for SPS-ness. For any reprinting of published material on QW, then we go to the original source and judge that (Peer-reviewed paper? Great! Medium.com post? Nope!). --Masem (t) 14:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option 1. RfCs allow for open-ended responses, and closers are expected to examine any exceptions or qualifications mentioned in the comments. — Newslinger talk 20:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Self-published status of authors)

• Note that any changes to WP:BLPSPS need to be proposed at WT:BLP. WP:SPS allows the use of self-published sources written by subject-matter experts, as long as the material is not about a living person. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• We should revise the rule to make it clear that the rule applies to comments about the person, not their false claims. Because fringe and false claims have little due weight, QW and other sources which debunk those claims would have the most weight, thus enforcing our status as a mainstream encyclopedia where SPOV rules. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That was attempted. We could try it again, but I'm not sure the result will change. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@BullRangifer:. I don't think we no to do that. WP:BLP applies to biographical information. Ideas people express do not inherit the protection of WP:BLP. We already have policy on how to cope with fringe concepts: WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I have been reading the various comments about whether Quackwatch is a SPS, it occurred to be that by the criteria many here are using pretty much every independent (not part of a chain) small town newspaper is a SPS that cannot be used in a BLP. Most such newspapers have one person who writes most of the articles, decides what articles from the AP to include, does all the editing, and decides what to cover. Yet small-town independent newspaper reporting is the backbone of many BLPs. If the Frostbite Falls News reports that one of our BLPs did something noteworthy we use it as a reference without a second thought, even though the Frostbite Falls News consists of Fred, who owns the paper, writes all of the copy in the morning. and operates the printing press in the afternoon. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the realpolitik of BLP is that nobody wants the WMF (or the community) exposed to the legal jeopardy that would result if Wikipedia published defamatory/libellous content. Hence we are required by policy effectively to use sources where wise lawyers (or at least legal-savvy people) will already have run their wise eyes over it and headed off any such possibility. This is also, of course, the ethical course that best serves Wikipedia's mission to share only accepted knowledge. So far as I can tell, Quackwatch is fully lawyered-up and Barrett is acutely aware of the legal perils any mis-step would expose him to. Perhaps somebody should ask him? Alexbrn (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• If it can be shown that Frostbite Falls is an SPS, I am happy to have it removed under policy from BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• My point is that by any criteria you could name, if Quackwatch is a SPS then Frostbite Falls News (which I am using as a stand-in for pretty much every independent small town newspaper) is a double plus SPS. Either ban Quackwatch and most small town newspapers from BLPs or allow Quackwatch and most small town newspapers in BLPs. It isn't fair to use different criteria. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is actually 100% fair and appropriate. To me, it would be more appropriate to say that unless you can clearly show there is a standard "editing" team - one or more writers and at least one editor-in-chief or similarly titled position that does not frequently write but is validating content - then the work should be presumed in the current "new media" to be an SPS and not usable for BLPs. Having that distinction between writer and editor - so that unfounded claims don't get published without at least two sets of eyes that have looked at it - is what is necessary to maintain the BLPSPS issue. So by that definition, we still would have QW as an SPS. --Masem (t) 00:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I understand that Frostbit Falls was used as a stand0in. My feelings mirror Masem - if a source is an SPS, it can't be used to make claims about a living person unless written by the subject of the BLP. That includes the hypothetical Frostbite Falls or other smalltown newspaper, which I'd similarly be willing to remove. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Barrett is acutely aware of the danger. He has been libeled and been in court many times. As a public person, it is hard for him to win, although Mercola settled out of court.

Barrett v. Rosenthal resulted in a legal decision (the subject of the ArbCom) which protects Wikipedia and its editors. It allows the REpublication of libelous material found on the internet, without any jeopardy to the REpublisher (IOW editors) or host (in this case Wikipedia). Only the original author of the libel can be sued. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

IANAL, but as I understand it, in British law repeating a libel can be as bad as originating one (hence, not too long ago, the famous Lord McAlpine case.[32]). Alexbrn (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

General reliability

How should the RfC ask about Quackwatch's general reliability? — Newslinger talk 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option A: The RfC should ask a question on whether Quackwatch is generally reliable, e.g.:

Is Quackwatch a generally reliable source for alternative medicine and quackery?

• Option B: The RfC should ask a two-option question on Quackwatch's general reliability, e.g.:

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Quackwatch?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for alternative medicine and quackery
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply

• Option C: The RfC should ask a three-option question on Quackwatch's general reliability, e.g.:

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Quackwatch?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for alternative medicine and quackery
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

• Option D: The RfC should not ask any questions about Quackwatch's general reliability.

Feel free to add other options to the list above.

Survey (General reliability)

• Option A: It is generally reliable for alternative medicine and quackery. As a mainstream health and medical source, it has been recognized for its value in these subject areas by numerous RS and agencies for many years. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is the duty of editors to accept the decision of RS. They should not allow personal editorial opinions to trump what RS say. That's a violation of NPOV. Mainstream RS consider it a valuable RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• *Option D per Masem. General reliability is not the issue here. Only use of Barrett's articles for BLP persons, not their claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A or Option C. If we are going to be reductive, and determine reliability sans context, we should be properly so. No great preference as to the open question in A or the closed question in C. If a closed question, the third option ("generally unreliable"), while unlikely to receive great support, should be offered explicitly. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A or Option D I think this has been decided, it is generally reliable. But consensus can change.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• A. We just need to ask if it is reliable or not - if people want to choose one of the suboptions they can just do so in their comment. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A - The question should be open ended in order to get the best input.- MrX 🖋 11:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option D - The issue does not seem to be related to whether or not QW is sufficiently an expert reliable source for quackery absent any BLP issues. It is specifically whether QW is an SPS, and to that end, how BLPSPS overrides RS to allow/disallow its use in BLP and BLP-related articles. --Masem (t) 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A. The Science-Based Medicine RfC asked this question, and it turned out quite well. Quackwatch is held to the same standards as any other source: if other sources can be evaluated on their degrees of adherence to the reliable sources guideline, so can Quackwatch. Otherwise, we'll just end up having this RfC at a later time since there appears to be disagreement here. — Newslinger talk 20:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (General reliability)

• Question. Is there a typo above (two times)? I see The Epoch Times written there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks. I need to be more careful when copying and pasting. — Newslinger talk 07:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• In practice, QW is a source of last resort but it is also an excellent source when it's needed per WP:PARITY because often mainstream publications do not sully themselves with consideration of altmed nonsense like coffee enemas and so on. Other, better, sources for particular quackery topics are sometimes available (from e.g. the NHS, FDA, etc.). How to capture this? Something like "QW is generally reliable on WP:FRINGE medical topics and should be used in the absence of stronger sources". Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:PARITY allows editors to use marginally reliable sources that oppose fringe theories (including sources classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply") to counter marginally reliable sources that support fringe theories (including sources used under WP:ABOUTSELF), and is primarily invoked when better sources are not available. Currently, Quackwatch (RSP entry) is classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply", and WP:PARITY is already in effect for Quackwatch in its areas of expertise (alternative medicine and quackery). If this RfC shows consensus to reclassify Quackwatch as generally reliable, WP:PARITY would play a lesser role, since Quackwatch would be considered usable in more situations even when WP:PARITY is not invoked. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good point. I have often cited PARITY when defending use of QW. Some alternative medicine practices and claims are so far out there that no medical journals bother with commenting on them, but those claims and practices are very notable and dangerous, and QW deals with them. They serve a very valuable purpose. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• The question of general reliability is not appropriate for this RfC. Stay focused on the use of Barrett's articles for BLP persons, not their claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC

The consensus in the first straw poll (to exclude the bias/partisanship question) is clear, although the other two polls would still benefit from more participation. Here's the second draft:

Draft 2 of Quackwatch RfC

RfC: Quackwatch This RfC asks editors two questions about Quackwatch: Is Quackwatch a generally (WP:GREL) reliable source (WP:RS) for alternative medicine and quackery? Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? (Insert signature here) Context matters: For each of these questions, please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of Quackwatch's content, such as the author(s), topic, and date of publication. The closer is advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. Generally reliable? Is Quackwatch a generally (WP:GREL) reliable source (WP:RS) for alternative medicine and quackery? Survey (Generally reliable?) Discussion (Generally reliable?) List of past noticeboard discussions on Quackwatch's reliability: QuackWatch (2007) Quackwatch (2007) Plural medicine, tradition and modernity (2008) Quackwatch (2008) Quackwatch etc (2008) Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery (2009) How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? (2010) Quackwatch (2012) Could Quackwatch, Martin Gardner and Michael Shermer be used to affirm that Rudolf Steiner was a pseudoscientist? (2013) Quackwatch (2013) Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet (2017) Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs? (2019) Additional noticeboard discussion on Stephen Barrett: Stephen Barrett (2007) Two additional discussions at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine): Is Quackwatch a reliable source? (2015) Proposal to address Quackwatch by name in this guideline (2015) An Arbitration Committee case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal (2007) Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal (2009) Self-published? Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? Survey (Self-published?) Discussion (Self-published?) Note: Self-published sources should not be used as third-party sources for living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. Changes to WP:BLPSPS are outside the scope of this RfC, and should be proposed at WT:BLP if needed.

What are your thoughts on this draft? — Newslinger talk 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

An RfC is totally unnecessary. Per WP:PARITY, Quackwatch is an excellent resource for alerting readers to the fact that the topic they are reading about is based on quackery, whether intentional or not. As discussed many times, normal scientists do not bother spending time and effort refuting every nonsensical claim and gold-plated reliable sources are not required to counter WP:REDFLAG topics. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree on this point. The question here was "Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?" So why has this morphed into a general question about reliability too? Also unhappy about linking to WP:GREL, a piece of content which is not part of the WP:PAGs, has unsufficient community weight behind it, and leads into dangerous over-simplification. The RfC should just ask whether Quackwatch is an SPS. Alexbrn (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevant straw poll is at § General reliability. — Newslinger talk 09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If there is consensus (in the above straw polls) not to ask any questions, we won't have an RfC. — Newslinger talk 10:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No issue with using it about theories, the problem is we say it is an SPS and SPS are blanket banned for comments ABOUT living people. So either we change policy, or declare QW not an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

QuackWatch is self published. We don't have the right to say it's something it isn't. We also can't change policy without wide community input. So we cannot here decide to throw out BLPSPS. However, sourcing fringe to mainstream content is a problem. If, as editors we cannot source the topic of an entire article with out going to a non-compliant source or no sources that article should not be written. If we are dealing with a topic like, "moon is made of green cheese" then we are dealing with a theory and we can almost certainly source theories with compliant sources. If we are dealing with content that is supported by compliant sources as in MEDRS topics and there are other views, and there are no good compliant sources for those views we could possibly with agreement go to lesser quality sources as long as they are added per their lesser weight to better sources. "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory.", but also per parity "...The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

I question whether Quackwatch is verifiable and then reliable given it is self published, but there are instances where it may be all we have. I personally would never use it, given its reliance on sarcasm, hyperbole and generalization and in some instances is just not factual, and can be cherry picked to accent this kind of language in our articles, but I realize others do not feel this way, and understand it can be used best as Alex said above as a last resort.

The "bottom line" given the complexity of discussion here, and our policies and guidelines seems to be that the best use of QuackWatch is on an individual basis with discussion and agreement. No source is reliable for all content anyway. Just my opinion and will leave this others now. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The "bottom line" line for me is one of the appearance of integrity. We do not do the reputation (and therefore impact) of our articles (or the project) any good if we ignore our own rules to slag someone off (even if it is justified). No one (as far as I know) has suggested its not an RS for opinions about opinions, just it is not RS for opinions about the holders of opinions. Yes we cannot (and should not) change policy here. But that is (in effect) what is being done, BLPSPS is being altered or ignored when it suits certain opinions, and only a policy change can do that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it goes further than the appearance of integrity, to integrity itself – and this hinges on the question of whether QW is (in whole or in part) a WP:SPS. Answering that question will allow things to proceed with certainty and with compliance to the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is good, but please collapse the list of previous discussions and place it after the signature, but before the first section break. WP:PARITY is not a guideline that enjoys broad consensus, so it obviously can't override policies like WP:BLP and WP:RS. I think we have already established that there will be an RfC.- MrX 🖋 12:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• It is important to remember that the BLP restriction on self-published sources relates to statements about PEOPLE (ie we can not use an SPS to support a statement about the person who is the subject of the BLP). It does NOT relate to statements about theories, claims, practices etc (so, we can still use an SPS to support a statement about what that subject says). To put this another way: While we can not use QW to say that Dr X is a “quack”... we can use it to say that his claim that eating earth worms cures cancer is deemed “quackery“. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

True, what avoiut (say) "A promoter of Quakery"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No... that is still a statement ABOUT the person. We would need a separation ... something like: “a promoter of the earthworm diet, which is deemed quackery”. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is not up for deabte, it is whether or not it is acceptable for saying the former.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Although that may not an unreasonable approach, we've failed to get consensus for that interpretation when talking about BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is why we are here, if it is an SPS we need to then discus a change of policy at the appropriate venue, if it is not an SPS case closed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is all a bit of a nonsense anyway I think. Such a statement could be reformulated as (say)

Dr X promotes the green tomato diet with claims it can "cure all forms of cancer".[ref to Dr X's site] The green tomato diet confers no proven health benefits and has been characterized as quackery.[ref to QW]

So the insistence that QW cannot be used to say Dr X is a promoter of a quack diet is just syntactic pettifogging IMO. Alexbrn (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Only if you believe that using Wikipedia as a platform to debunk pseudomedicine is more important that our BLP policy. Also, I've never understood why it's necessary to WP:LABEL things quackery, when we could simply say that they're not supported by scientific evidence. In fact, WP:BLPSTYLE seem quite clear on that point. - MrX 🖋 17:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BLPSPS can be read to include statements about what a person thinks or does. Say a public figure, otherwise normal in all other aspects, asserts the moon is made of cheese and when pressed, stands by that statement, vowing he knows it is the truth. It would be inappropriate to use an SPS to talk about that fallacy absent mainstream RS sources that also point out the statement is wrong. Now, this is different from a situation where a person may be an an anti-vaxxer with their reasons for that falling in the same general lines that other anti-vaxxers give. If there was some need to include an SPS to dispel the fallacies of anti-vaxxing that did not talk about that person but about anti-vaxxers in general, that would be fine, as the SPS is not specifically focusing on the person. But as soon as the SPS turns to a piece that is directly about the person, their ideas or their actions, BLPSPS kicks in. --Masem (t) 15:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia and we are required to ensure fringe views are clearly described as such. Whether the moon is made of cheese is not a matter subject to WP:BLP. Using an ingenious "reading" of BLP to kick away one of WP's pillars would be ... problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP overrides NPOV for all purposes. Claims made about a BLP must be from RSes. If no RS has challenged an idea made by a BLP as quackery, it is not our place to call it out as quackery -- but at the same time, it is not our place to include the BLP's claim if no RSes have covered it in the first place (BLPs are not meant to be unduly self-serving so we're not going to re-iterate in-depth claims of quackery from primary sources). That's how we achieve the NPOV/FRINGE issues; if they are so fringe that only SPS are covering them, there's zero reason to include. --Masem (t) 15:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is really a different issue, and one worthy of debate, just not here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think the core issues is specifically if QW is an SPS so that how it intersects with BLPSPS is handled. I don't think its status as an RS (SPS or not) on non-BLP pages about fringe medicine is in question: its got the right expertise for that when no names are involved. --Masem (t) 15:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP content must adhere strictly to NPOV, and NPOV tells us how to deal with fringe views. This is plainly written explicit policy. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Specifically, the WP:PSCI section of WP:NPOV, which directs the reader to WP:FRINGE for more info. Also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

All of which talk about "Theories", not the people that hold them, nor can I see any mention of BLP's.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV does not state we must identify fringe views as fringe views, which is the point you argue. The sourcing has to be there to support it, otherwise that's engaging in OR. We need RS sourcing to identify those views as fringe to identify those views as such, and when we get to a BLP, that RS sourcing cannot be an SPS. But I will stress: between BLP, NPOV, and FRINGE, it is wholly inappropriate to include a BLP's fringe view in medical areas in the first place it is not discussed in any RS, thus eliminating the concern about disproving that view as FRINGE. That is, I find it really hard to believe there would ever be a case where we have good RSes that document a BLP's fringe medical view, and none of those RSes or other RSes describe the view as bad science or quackery to go along with it. --Masem (t) 15:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe that we have established that Quackwatch is a RS regarding pseudoscience and BLPs of pseudoscientists. What is still being debated is whether Quackwatch is an SPS -- specifically a self-published expert source that is considered to be a reliable source because it is produced by an established expert on the subject matter. My position is that Quackwatch is not an SPS at all and thus cannot be a reliable SPS. Other here disagree, and some here keep begging the question by assuming without evidence that we have already determined that Quackwatch is an SPS and using that as an argument in favor of us determining that Quackwatch is an SPS. These question-begging arguments are typically in the form of proclaiming that cannot use an SPS in a BLP without ever establishing that Quackwatch is an SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"we get to a BLP, that RS sourcing cannot be an SPS" <- you keep arguing that, but it's not part of the WP:PAGs, whereas BLP/FRINGE/NPOV are, and we are told to obey them strictly. BLP's prohibition on SPS's does - yes - apply to biographical information anywhere. But a claim in the realm of biomedicine is not biographical in nature (though it is a common misconception among arts types that scientific statements are a kind of self-expression). The problem would occur when RS (a mainstream news source say) uncritically reports some person's championing of something dodgy, and only a WP:PARITY source like Quackwatch bothers to counter it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP overrides NPOV for all purposes. As one of the original authors of WP:BLP, this makes it appear that you have a stupendous misunderstanding of WP:BLP. BLPs precisely must conform to NPOV, V, NOR - the difference from any other article is that standards of these policies are much higher. That's literally all - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that it is being argued that NPOV requires us to point out fringe medical/pseudoscience views, which may require weak sourcing like an SPS to do, but BLP does not allow the use of SPS for that. The way I would phrase it is that BLP requires meeting V/NOR/NPOV. but has special additions that enforce additional requirements beyond what V/NOR/NPOV establish. BLP does not weaken adherence to V/NOR/NPOV. --Masem (t) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"but BLP does not allow the use of SPS for that" <- that is a mis-statement of policy, pure & simple. Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. I realize that the line "material about a living person" is the tricky part because it is very grey. A separate stand-alone quack theory is not material about a living person, but so often in disproving that theory, QW is making statements about the person's education, which is not allowed per BLPSPS (if QW is an SPS). Or, if we're not talking a full-fledged theory and are novel statements of opinion that trend towards quackery, it would be inappropriate to use QW as an SPS (if it is one) to criticize those since that's material about a person. Answering whether QW is an SPS is a key step, because if QW isn't, then all those issues vanish. But if it is, then becomes where is the line drawn where QW can be used on reporting on quackery of a theory without touching on the BLP themselves. --Masem (t) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody else seems to be finding it "very grey". Yes, the qualifications somebody has is "about them" (so no SPS for sourcing that!); whether or not (say) taking a dietary supplement is dangerous, or whether the earth is flat, is not information about a living person. NPOV tells us how to deal with fringe views, and BLP directs us to follow NPOV strictly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This (at its heart) is major part of the problem, BLP policy clearly states that nothing about a LP can be sourced to an SPS "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person...", to me never means never. So we go back to policy needs to be re-written, which is not in the scope of this RFC, or forum.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It may not be in the scope of this RfC, but the results of this RfC may well produce the arguments to be used in an attempt to tweak the BLPSPS policy wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think we need one example of a fringe theory or pseudoscience that is not called that in any RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A lot of these same arguments were rehearsed about Michael Greger's claims about diet (though the source in that case was Science-Based Medicine, not QW). This led to an RfC.[33]. Quackwatch is currently used in several biographies. From a quick search: Robert O. Young, Joseph Mercola and Eric R. Braverman - I haven't explored the wider sourcing for these people. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure its quite the same (but am not aware of the case), no one is saying we canont use QW for opinions about anyones views, only about them. As has been pointed out above much of this could be dealt with my re-wording. Which makes it all the harder to understand the opposition.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Young's page, as a starting point, I will say that is where QW is being used alongside non-SPS RSes (sciencebasedmedicine, a few other reports). Using QW to expand on those claims is fine, BLPSPS does not prevent that (presuming QW is treated as an SPS). It is when QW is the only source to point out fringe stuff. --Masem (t) 16:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm generally concerned about this - in times when we have a good source to use to reference a statement about a living person, using an SPS as well is unnecessary. If it is already sourced, we don't need need the SPS alongside it. If it is not sufficiently referenced by the non-SPS, we can't use the SPS to cover it. I see little value in using an SPS in addition to an RS in those cases, and some risk if we do. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is probably an issue beyond the present question of QW related to BLPSPS, but it is fair. As long as QW is going into more depth about claims made about the person already established in an RS, and not introducing new ones (in the case of QW, providing a more firm scientific basis why something is quackery), then it doesn't seem to run afoul of why we have BLPSPS. However, I do see BLPSPS being that hard line so would also agree with the point of why use QW if other nonSPS RS cover the same effective points. --Masem (t) 21:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If an SPS is making claims that no RS is making, even if that is simply a matter of more depth or details, then we're back in the realm of using an SPS to make claims about a living person. It is relevant, in this case, because QW has been used that way, and I've seen this a lot on fringe BLPs, where an SPS and a RS are both being used to source the same thing, but there is strong resistence to removing the SPS even when it adds nothing to the claims, and if it did add something we couldn't use it. But it is complex. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "no one is saying we canont use QW for opinions about anyones views, only about them" – that is precsiely what (I think) Masem is arguing. (quote above: "We need RS sourcing to identify those views as fringe to identify those views as such, and when we get to a BLP, that RS sourcing cannot be an SPS"). Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

OK then I (and I suspect all but one other person) have not argued that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also there is no point is discussion if QW is an SPS, that is for the FRC to decide. Do we have an agreement that this can be the basis of the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The original question was "Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?" I'm not sure why this has become so complicated. Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is a SPS is determined by whether or not they have independent reviewers (defined as lacking a conflict of interest) doing fact checking. Since proving a negative is damned near impossible, can anyone who thinks Quackwatch is not a SPS provide who the independent reviewers are? --Kyohyi (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would reviewers change anything? An SPS is a self published source. If the same person writes, edits and publishes the material, whether or not they also seek advice about the content, they are self publishing. The most getting people to advise on their content does is speak to reliablity - it doesn't change whether or not they are the one responsible for publishing their own material. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As others have said above, it's not necessarily so simple. What about this piece for example? Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

::Examples of self-published sources

Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including:

Blogs

Web forums

Wikis

Social networking sites like Facebook, Myspace, Google+, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Sites with user-generated content, including YouTube and Find A Grave

Business, charitable, and personal websites

So we go back to, looks like policy says it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The link provided by Alexbrn just above points out why this is a major BLP concern. That link, while demonstrating why the person's science is bad, starts by criticizing the lack of certain degrees or expertise. Absent any discussion of the medical/scientific theories, that information related to the person's expertise would be absolutely disallowed from an SPS on a BLP; that's exactly the type of stuff BLPSPS is meant to keep out without an RS to back it up. If we were discussing the quackery medical concepts only, we can still use that article, but we'd have to keep a 10 foot pole from including the claims about lack of expertise from that. This is where using QW becomes an issue as often, the disproving of the theory starts with challenging the BLP's credentials. If an RS was doing that, that would be fine, but not from an SPS , if that is what QW is. --Masem (t) 16:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also says this

If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.

In determining whether a source is self-published, you should not consider any other factors. Neither the subject material, nor the size of the entity, nor whether the source is printed on paper or available electronically, nor whether the author is a famous expert, makes any difference.

As such work published on the site by other authors may not be SPS (It does also say forums and Wiki's which are often edited by people who do not own them), but nor does expertise render it an non SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

So from that it would follow that portions of Quackwatch (i.e. those not authored by Barrett) cannot be classified as WP:SPS? Alexbrn (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As I implied its not quite that simple "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of reviewers who are independent of the author (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course. Only the articles by Barrett which are only published at QW can be considered SPS, and that should be the focus of this RfC. Scrub all other considerations and simplify this matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's compromise: we can start the RfC on whether Quackwatch is self-published, since there is strong support for that question. If the RfC finds consensus that Quackwatch is self-published, or if there's no consensus, Quackwatch will continue to be classified as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" – with a note that WP:PARITY is in effect for fringe topics. If the RfC finds consensus that Quackwatch is not self-published, we'll do a follow-up RfC to determine whether it's generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 20:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Quackwatch

Is Quackwatch a self-published source (WP:SPS)? — Newslinger talk 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Context matters: Please indicate if you have different opinions on different aspects of Quackwatch's content, such as the author(s), topic, and date of publication. The closers are advised to evaluate whether there are separate consensuses for different aspects of the publication. — Newslinger talk 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Quackwatch)

• No. See "Quackwatch is now an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct."[34] QuackGuru (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, at least mostly, because the people who write most of the content are the same ones deciding to post that content on the website. It's important for editors to remember that "self-published" is not a term of abuse. It only means that the author and the publisher are the same person or organization. The same is true for, e.g., www.apple.com, www.coca-cola.com, and most other websites (with the significant exception of typical media outlets). So as a purely factual matter, if Stephen Barrett writes an article, and Stephen Barrett decides to post that article on Stephen Barrett's website, then that's self-published. It doesn't matter if Quackwatch is "now an international network", because the same definition applies: If "an international network" writes an article, and "an international network" decides to publish it, then it's self-published. However, articles by occasional contributors and people otherwise uninvolved in the organization are probably not self-published (because the occasional contributor writes it, but Stephen Barrett or that underspecified "international network" publishes it).
  There's always a tendency in these discussions to try to dodge the plain facts because it's inconvenient when we recognize that a source we like is somehow a WP:NOTGOODSOURCE – it's primary, or it's self-published, or it's not independent, or whatever. But I think the solution in that case isn't to pretend that this isn't (mostly) a self-published source. I think the solution is to invoke IAR or to adjust the policies and guidelines to accept these good sources even thought they don't happen to fall into the right abstract categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - Quackwatch is now (and has been for the last 11 years) written, edited and published by Steven Barret on a website which he fully owns and controls. He does seek advice on some articles before he publishes them, (he notes that he sends some articles to advisers he selects if he is not confident with the material, and that he doesn't seek advice on news articles), and this helps speak to reliablity, but if an author ultimately controls all aspects of the publication process then they are self publishing. There are a small minority of articles on Quackwatch which were not originally published elsewhere but which are solely by authors other than Barrett - these should be considered on a case-by-case basis. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of editors have mentioned Quackwatch Inc. Quackwatch Inc was disolved by Barrett in 2008. Since then it has been solely owned and operated by Barrett. [35] - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Just as a note about reliability vs publication status. The argumnent turns up that Quackwatch is reliable and therefore not an SPS - either due to Barrett's expertise or to do with the anonymous expert review that it is claimed some articles undergo. That it is reliable is a fair enough claim. But just as non-self published sources can be unreliable, (the Daily Mail springs to mind), it is possible that self-published sources may be reliable, and we acknowledge in RSP that self published sources by an expert may well be reliable in their area of expertise. Nevertheless, whether or not something is reliable does not change how it was published or who was ultimately responsible for decisions at each stage of that publication. Even if Quackwatch is reliable, it is still also self-published, and it is the publication status which is in contention. - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, except the articles written by Barrett. The website is NOT an SPS. It's a huge database. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, Quackwatch is a self-published source (SPS). It is Stephen Barrett's website, and he writes most of the articles and controls the site. Contrary to WAID's post above, Apple.com isn't an SPS; it's created and maintained by a professional staff. Self-published sources are described in the sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, at WP:SPS:

  "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources."

Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources are never acceptable in BLPs unless written by the subject, and then only with certain caveats. This is an important safeguard in the BLP policy. It means that no individual can post something about a living person directly to their website, then use that post as a source on Wikipedia. It means that material about living persons has been checked before publication by professional editors and if it's contentious perhaps by the publisher's lawyers. For BLPs, we need to rely on sources with a professional editorial staff. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes As in my comments above [36] and per Slim Virgin. Add: if there is something really worth using as a source in QuackWatch it could possibly be found in another more reliable format. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, but among such sites it's reasonably reliable and has a good reputation. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, see LA Times (though that describes it as the skeptical blog Quackwatch), PSmag, CNN, The Atlantic (also describes it as a blog), New York Times, etc. The fact that many of these describe it as a blog IMHO makes it too dicey to use it directly for claims about a WP:BLP, but I do feel it's definitely a good source (with an in-line citation) for statements about treatments, theories, etc. Also, since I suspect this may come up, I don't feel that "this theory is wrong" or "this treatment is harmful" (on an article about the theory or treatment) is a WP:BLP-sensitive statement, even if the theory is unambiguously associated with one person - down that route lies madness, because it would rapidly extend BLP to cover nearly everything. --Aquillion (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, that The Atlantic inaccurately describes it as a blog, and that LA Times inaccurately describes QW as a blog (they accurately describe SBS as a blog) is problematic....for The Atlantic and LA Times. That means that they are not RS when it comes to describing QW. That is very careless writing. At least they use QW favorably.

  There is NOTHING about QW that is like a blog, not in the old sense or new sense. BTW, even if it was a blog, it would not be the comments from others which we'd use, only the content written by the recognized subject experts, and that is allowed here (except for Barrett's articles about a BLP person as his articles are SPS). Unfortunately, some still use the old definition of a blog (a personal public diary where others can comment, and that is the type of blog we deprecate) and don't see the development in use of blogs since then. It's just another website format, and some public persons, politicians, and companies choose that easy format as their official websites. QW is nothing like that. It does not use blog software or format. Besides, no matter the format, there is still editorial control by subject experts, and for the articles written by Barrett, he often seeks input from other subject experts, and he does have lawyers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly BullRangifer! Sgerbic (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Editorial control involves having an editor other than the author in charge of whether or not something is published. In this case Barrett seeks advice about some articles, but the editor is still Barrett, as he makes all the editorial decisions regarding the articles he writes and publishes. - Bilby (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, yes, Barrett is just like the Editor-in-Chief of the Los Angeles Times in many ways. An editorial in the Times is also an SPS, and the Editor-in-Chief makes editorial decisions about the other content that is published, often involving consultation with specialists.

That's exactly what happens at QW, except that Barrett is a renowned and highly respected subject expert whose articles are usually well-referenced and not just his opinion. He uses his scientific background. He also consults with other subject experts, and you and I know just as little about that process as we do with the Editor-in-Chief of the LA Times. (Well, that's not totally true with QW. We know more about that process because Barrett posts a list of experts he consults.)

We don't have to know the exact nature of that process, because we trust that people in the Editor-in-Chief position are a notch above other writers. We recognize that they have more credibility, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into their positions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he hasn't posted that list of experts since 2006. The advisers are anonymous now. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Already answered in a separate section below. The experts are still there, just not posted. There is no justification for dissing and disrespecting a notable subject expert. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "dissing" anyone - just posting a small correction to your statement "Well, that's not totally true with QW. We know more about that process because Barrett posts a list of experts he consults". - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby , I just noticed this. No, we DO know more about QW than we do the LA Times. We do not know what experts are used by the Times. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

According to QuackWatch, they do not post a list of who their experts are, because "the task of keeping a directory up to date became far more trouble than it was worth". [37] - Bilby (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• No except those articles written by Barrett not proofread or overseen by Quackwatch’s Scientific and Technical Advisors. Quackwatch has made an effort to let the public know that its articles were overseen by 152 advisors in 2009, and more than 1,000 over time.[38] I accept these statements in good faith. Also Quackwatch should not be called “partisan” because according to definition it is not “strongly supporting a person, principle, or political party, often without considering or judging the matter very carefully”.[39] By comparison or contrast articles by the Southern Poverty Law Center are not called “partisan” at WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Alternatively Quackwatch may be biased against quackery, but that's not a bias, just a normal, neutral and mainstream sensible position. CatCafe (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  A small clarification: the Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) is labeled as biased or opinionated in its entry, a term that is used interchangeably with the word partisan. — Newslinger talk 05:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• No per CatCafe. I give a "here here" to Cat's statement that it is not biased against quackery, it is just repeating the conscientious of science. It has a terrific reputation. Sgerbic (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Further comment - If the argument is that QW is not allowed because it is a blog because it allows comments, then SBM would also be a blog. If the argument is that QW is published on a website, then again so is SBM. Barrett himself is notable and even his comments about living persons when published on QW are RS as are all other comments from other notable persons. Those comments should always be qualified by "According to Steven Barrett ... " The definition that is written for this discussion is the problem and we should be discussing QW's use as a RS and NOT how it fits some wordy description that sorta sums up what we call rules. These discussions are really getting into the weeds. Is QW a RS or not? That is the question we should be discussing. And to that I say Yes. And keep in mind that these arguments against QW would also fit the discussion against SMB which I'm sure we would agree, would be ridiculous. Sgerbic (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

QW is NOT "a blog because it allows comments." It's not a blog, and the only comments are those sent to Barrett, just like what happens on other websites and magazines. There isn't even a Letters to the Editor feature at QW. (Just to be sure, I just searched the site and didn't find any. It has a good search function.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Letters to the editor" are at [40]. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess you could call them that. Big deal. Is there something wrong with that? That is no different than all other RS, and we would never use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a clarification. - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• • QW isn't comparable to SBM. While I dislike the sarcastic tone of both, SBM has the oversight of multiple qualified editors in the fields of medicine and science which makes it a reliable source per our guides, and which at the least makes SBM a good source for relevant opinions. (As well, it might be worth repeating.) Sources are only reliable for the content they source but not for anything and everyhting. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, similarly to what Littleolive oil and Aquillion wrote, I think it's a good source that may be useable for scientific statements on a case-by-case basis (particularly when lacking opposing views sources in fringe topics), but not for biographies, as it is a self-published source. But even for scientific statements, either QuackWatch provides a good bibliography that we can directly use, or it's not and then it's only QuackWatch's opinion and not facts and then it's arguable whether QW should be used at all. The fact that there may be multiple authors does not change the fact that there is no systematic reviewing process, this essentially remains a blog. Essentially, I think we should treat it as any other self-published source, we should make no exception solely because we appreciate the source, as I think it's a dangerous path as I wrote in WP:NOBIAS. --Signimu (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No QuackWatch is peer reviewed and is published by Quackwatch, Inc. It is not like a self published blog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is (mostly) written, owned and published by one person (thus fits OUR definition of SPS), Expertise and accuracy are (as stated in policy) irrelevant for determining this. Now there may be evidence of peer review, but there are some statements that its owner publishes anything he likes the look of without peer review (thus may fail the SPS statement about knowing the publisher), thus I am not sure it is possible to say which have been peer reviewed or which are by his mates and have just been published as is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No because QuackWatch is peer reviewed --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - The answer to this question is a judgement call because of the loosey-goosey definition of "self published source" in WP:SPS. Quackwatch has characteristics of "claim to be an expert", "newsletters",[41], a "personal blog", a "group blog", a "content farms", and "internet forum postings"[42]. The website includes articles written by the owner of the website, as well as articles curated from various sources like forum posts,[43] conference papers,[44] other self published sources, and journals. The website owner has a medical degree and practiced psychiatry more than two decades ago, but it's not clear what qualifies him to declare a wide variety of subjects "quackery". I'm not aware that he has specialized training in the field of identifying and debunking quackery, although it's clear he is singularly devoted to that cause. The website has no editorial staff or independent editorial process that I can discern, and the idea that the website is peer reviewed appears to be an attempt to lend it legitimacy by co-opting jargon from conventional science publishers. - MrX 🖋 13:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, yes. One way or the other, it seems to be Barrett's website, to the extent that anyone else has input on the content it is at the discretion of Barrett, and Barrett it the final authority on all editorial decisions. Saying "lots of anonymous experts look at this stuff sometimes" sounds nice, but from what I can tell, it is still Barrett who decides what topics need outside input, Barrett who chooses these experts, and Barrett who decides whether or not to incorporate their recommendations. None of these accouterments make it not-Barrett's-website. GMG^talk 15:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Everything I can see here fits the definition of SPS almost to a tee. Almost everything is written or dictated by the owner of the site with no oversight. It is basically a blog from what I can tell. Also I see no signs of actual peer review so that is not an argument. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is (mostly) written and reviewed by Barrett, and published at a site owned by the author. Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, there's an editorial board/peer review going on and it's an authoritative source on quackery of all sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's an editorial board (if there is, please post a source). I've never seen any mention of a board on the site. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per CatCafe and Doc James. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes: Lack of evidence that would otherwise suggest independent or outside review, by peers or others of any sort. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• No as many others have explained, it is peer reviewed. It’s not an SPS and is widely seen as a useful and authoritative source on the subject of quackery. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• This has been brought up by multiple people, but what I haven't seen is what that peer review process actually is. Are the recommendations of the reviewers binding, or are they merely suggestions for Barrett to take or leave as they see fit? If it is the former, then the peer review argument might hold weight. If it is the former, then it looks like peer review in name only. GMG^talk 16:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes per arguments of Bilby and SlimVirgin. It's fundamentally a website owned and operated by Stephen Barrett with only the thinnest veneer of editorial oversight by volunteers. The fact that it cites scientific papers, is generally reliable, and is extremely popular with some editors doesn't change the fundamental position. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes it is a self-published site. It may have some noted experts, but it lacks the proper editors/peer review facets we would expect for an RS (particularly one in the medical area like MEDRS). --Masem (t) 15:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, very obviously No. I randomly picked twenty links on the site. 13 of them were written by Barrett, 7 were by other people. Those 7 are very, very obviously not self-published, because - I feel silly having to write this - the author and the publisher are different people. I have no idea how anybody can even consider describing them as self-published. Therefore, calling the whole of Quackwatch self-published would be obviously wrong. Many other No voters have already pointed out that there are such non-Barrett articles, but I cannot see any response from Yes voters. Is this a case of WP:IDHT, or did I miss something? --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I was curious about this too, and checked the first 100 articles on the site. Of those, the majority were by Barrett, and the majority of those written by other people were reprints from elsewhere. It ended up being that less than 10% were both written solely by someone other than Barrett and were not simply a republication. Of the articles published and listed as recent, which covers the last three years, all were written by Barrett except for four published elsewhere and hosted on the site. - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So, you think that the 10% non-Barrett articles are also self-published because... it is only 10%? What flimsy excuse for a reason is that?

Others have already suggested the "only the Barrett articles are self-published" solution. What is wrong with that? I repeat: Why should we call articles "self-published" when they are obviously not self-published? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What I originally said - and still stand by - is given that the bulk of the articles are self published or reprints, we regard Quackwatch as self published, and take other articles on a case-by-case basis. - Bilby (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

When you say "other articles", what do you mean?

Are you saying that you call Barrett's articles on Quackwatch "Quackwatch", and you call non-Barrett articles on Quackwatch "other articles"?

If yes, then a) that is an extremely weird way of talking, and b) you are agreeing with the "only the Barrett articles are self-published" solution, which is different from "the whole of Quackwatch is self-published", and you should have answered my question "What is wrong with that?" with something like "Nothing, that is what I want too".

If no, I have no idea what you could mean. Maybe "other articles" is the non-Quackwatch part of the internet? Why is it so difficult for you to clearly say what you want to say? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm ok with your view. It's simply that I looked into this as well, and for me when under 10% of the articles were not by Barrett and not published everywhere, I was happy to regard Quackwatch as an SPS - except in regard to the few exceptions. But I'm ok if you want to argue that it is not an SPS because some article are by other authors, and only those by Barrett are self published. Personally, I'm only inclined to treat articles by Barrett on QW as self published anyway, so from my end I'm good with either way of labelling things if that is where consensus ends up. - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, the catch here is that you are referring to the fact that you "checked the first 100 articles on the site. Of those, the majority were by Barrett..." No one is denying that Barrett writes a lot of the content there, but your investigation is a very limited. The index page is indeed nearly all Barrett articles, but QW is a database with many other sources, and you and I really don't have any exact statistics, so we can't make any judgment based on what's on the front page.

The other articles, documents, legal reports, historical documents, entire books, court judgments, etc., most of which were originally published elsewhere, are usually housed at QW because they can no longer be found elsewhere. That's the whole idea. QW specializes in information which is hard to find elsewhere. It's right there in the site description. When I cite such a source found at QW, I format my citation just as if it was still found on the original source, but use the QW url. Very simple solution.

General comment: Attempts to dis QW would cut off our use of these sources, and that would be a great loss. Some editors here have obviously not read our Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett articles and have not performed due diligence. I suggest they do so before they continue digging a grave for QW in their eagerness to bury it. They should also stick to the limited scope of this RfC. Bilby, IIRC, you have been pretty good at that, and I thank you for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I access the other articles that are not linked to on the front page of his site? - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have usually found them because they were cited by outside sources, were linked to by Barrett in his own articles (QW uses internal "wikilinks" extensively, and by using the site's own search engine. I know of no "index" for all the content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I guess what you are referring to then are attachments to the articles he publishes, such as primary sources he used, but not necessarily original content. - Bilby (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's often the case. His articles usually cite his sources. Some are totally external, others are third party RS housed at QW, and others are links to internal articles related to the topic, where more info and sources can be found. That's been my experience. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, a self-published site is one where you can wake up at three in the morning and, sitting in bed in your pyjamas, tap out an article and press "publish", without having to check first with a professional staff of fact-checkers, copy editors, a managing editor, an editor-in-chief, the company lawyers, or a publisher. We don't allow that kind of source in BLPs, for obvious reasons, with no exceptions. That part of the policy (WP:BLPSPS) is strongly supported. Quackwatch is the very essence of what's meant by a self-published site, where one person—its owner and the person who has written almost all of it—has complete control over what appears there. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you even talking to me when your contribution completely ignores what I said? Please read WP:IDHT.

So, now I have seen "responses" by Yes voters, but both of them are crap. One sidesteps the question, and one ignores it.

You people use the word "most", as in "most articles are written by Barrett", but your conclusion "it is self-published" only follows if you replace the "most" by "all". Why is that? Did the definition of "most" change when I was not looking? Is there an obscure Wikipedia rule that says those two words are the same? I very much sympathize with Alice at the moment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, if you create a website and sometimes you invite your neighbour to make a contribution, that doesn't mean it's no longer your own, self-published site. The point would remain that you own the site and that you alone decide what appears there. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, the same applies to any newspaper where the Editor-in-Chief writes editorials and also has others write articles. Only the articles by that Editor-in-Chief are considered self-published. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, that's not how newspapers work. Even small newspapers have many eyes on every piece, including by the editor-in-chief, and editorial board meetings to decide what to publish and how to cover things. Newspapers are not self-published sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works says "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." I will stop talking to you now because of your WP:IDHT condition. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I've been in 2 minds on this since I first saw it at BLPN. It seems clear that QuackWatch probably has better processes in place for trying to avoid the problems of having just some random person (be it a subject matter expect) publish something without check by some other party. And especially, that they have better processes in place for managing complaints after the fact than many SPS. Heck in some ways their use of a subject matter expert may often produce better results when it comes to the science than some of the crap that nominally reliable sources with clear editorial processes publish. Still, I've seen nothing that is sufficient to ensure it isn't still a self-published source. And I say this even for articles written by others published exclusively on QuackWatch. So yes for BLP purposes they should all be treated as SPS. While I understand the concerns over preventing us challenging some of the stuff proponents if questionable practices say and do, we have to accept that sometimes this is how things have to be. We should equally demand quality sources before allowing any claims from such proponents to be presented, including in articles on them. Also, this may not effect articles on practices provided we aren't using QuackWatch to support claims about specific people. For example, if we have an article on Licking cats, it may be fine to say "The scientific consensus is that there is no medical benefit arising from licking cats. There is also a risk of infection by toxoplasmosis and other diseases, especially those transmitted via the fecal–oral route. Many cats don't like it anyway." sourced to QuackWatch. However we shouldn't say "Nil Einne is a proponent of the practice" if the only source of that is QuackWatch. For an article on Nil Einne, we may not be able to mention the criticism of the practice if there is really no other source, but I suspect in most cases there will also be no merit to mention the practice at all because it's simply not covered in good sources. (If it is covered, it's likely there will be some mention that the practice is controversial so we can mention that, maybe without needing to elabourate.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, not by any meaningful test. Multiple authors and at least informal review. Guy (help!) 12:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, not by any reasonable standard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• No — not by any standard definition. There have been plenty of RfCs on whether we ought use Quackwatch, and they all end up showing the same thing — QW is a reliable and quality source. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but don't you think that it's possible for some self-published sources to be a reliable and quality source? The WP:SPS policy seems to indicate that this is possible, when the source is written and published by a recognized subject-matter expert (which IMO Barrett is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Mu – depends on what page on the QuackWatch website you're talking about. Some pages are self published, other pages are not self published. – Levivich 23:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  ​Could you please be more specific? Among editors who believe Quackwatch is partially self-published, there is disagreement over which of Quackwatch's pages are self-published. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  ​ Yes – I can be more specific. Per WP:USESPS, the question is whether the publisher and the author are the same. QW publishes a mixture of self-published [45] [46] and non-self-published [47] [48] [49] content. So when answering "Is QW an SPS?", a categorical "yes" and a categorical "no" are both wrong. The only right answer is, "it depends on the work". A separate issue is that "self-published" is being used at times in this discussion as a proxy for "reliable", and those two aren't the same thing. An SPS can still be reliable. – Levivich 03:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  PS: the way I read it, the word "source" in "self-published source" refers to a work, and not a publisher. Same with a "reliable source"–that's a specific work, not a publisher. For this reason, questions like, "is this source self-published" or "is this source reliable" cannot be asked or answered about a publisher, but only about a specific work. – Levivich 03:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification, Levivich! As a note, the primary objective of this RfC is to determine how WP:BLPSPS should be applied to Quackwatch, if at all. — Newslinger talk 03:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I think it is. And this is an example of where self published != bad. However it does mean that we shouldn't be relying on it for sole-sourcing in BLP articles. If a neutral article about a quack depends on Quackwatch to be possible, we just shouldn't be covering them. Not everything needs to be on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes with a qualification, for reasons stated above. I believe Quackwatch to be the professional medical opinion, but opinion nonetheless, of Dr Barrett, who is also the founder and most prolific writer. Maybe some distinction could be made between the articles of Barrett's and those of his contributors, but in my estimation, Barrett seems to be the sole gateway for content and thus have to say it seems the content of this site is solely dependent upon Dr Barrett's personal opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per Bilby and with strict adherence to WP:USESPS, WP:V and WP:NOR; adding that it's best to also better to cite at least 1 or 2 RS that corroborate what they've published. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• No Quackwatch has been used on many BLP articles for well over a decade. It is the most reliable source on the internet dealing with quackery written by professional experts, not just one person. This is not a website written in someone's bedroom. For example Jack Raso, M.S., R.D., [50] and [51] has published reliable articles on the website as have many other specialists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes-Clearly self-published. If there was any doubt, multiple reliable sources refer to it as a blog.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Rusf10, even RS can get it wrong. There is nothing bloglike about QW. Nothing at all. Very few RS make that mistake. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• No does not match SPS I re-read SPS and all these comments and I am now questioning how relevant SPS is now as compared to when it was written in about 2007. I think the definition of WP:SPS is outdated. We have this policy, "self published sources", but the criteria for being a "self-published source" is unrelated to "self-publishing". The criteria are more about the availability of publisher information. Yes, I agree, one person is publishing Quackwatch, and this person is not subject to external or institutional editorial control, and is only presenting themselves as an expert of their field. However, the intent of WP:SPS was never to dismiss self-published sources exactly, but rather to communicate that 12+ years ago there was no such thing as a reputable source which could publish in a one-person media channel. Times have changed and self-publishing has a different meaning and context now. Lots of experts acting alone can have their own websites now, when this used to be much more unusual. In the opposite case, books which are not self published are much less trustworthy, because publishing costs for books have dropped so much. For example, one person could publish a book, and it could get sold to a reputable publisher, but since the publishing industry is wrecked as compared to 15 years ago, a book from a reputable publisher nowadays is more likely to be of the low quality of a self-published website of 12 years ago. The guideline about SPS in Wikipedia is not about a publication method, but about whether a source has markers of reliability, such as an identified author, known positions, discoverable bias, etc. Quackwatch is an old website and we have all this information about it. It is consistent for what it is and it publishes mainstream opinions for a demographic, and the author of that website is an author in conventional book publishing as well. I would like to rename WP:SPS to get away from evaluations of publishing method, and instead to distinguish the original intent of that policy. The original intent was to dismiss publications which appeared without context, and to emphasize publications where we have a large body of information about the source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Seems to be clearly a self-published source for articles written by the same person who has ownership and editorial control. The fact that nobody other than an article author reviews and could reject or question facts in an article means that we should not be treating this source the same as other sources in certain circumstances. "Self-published" is a factual question and not about whether the source is "reliable". Also, concerns with Wikipedia policies about how to use self-published sources seem largely irrelevant here, and should be addressed on the talk pages of those relevant policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per WhatamIdoing, Bilby, and SlimVirgin. Surveying their new articles page, pretty much everything that's not a reposted PDF scan was written by Barrett. Significant parts of the site FAQ is written in the first person singular. Donations go directly to Barrett [52], and they report that their non-profit organization has been dissolved for a decade. The content creator and publisher are the same, so it seems like a WP:SPS to me. That said Barrett may meet the criteria of being an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," which would permit its limited use in non-BLP situations. However, I have no opinion on whether Barrett is actually an "established expert" or not, since I haven't looked into it. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, as explained by SlimVirgin. I find it telling that the "How to Become a Quackwatch Advisor" page, mostly written from a plural "we" and "us" perspective, contains the text "send me an e-mail", emphasis mine. Even the website's attempts to make a professional impression fail to make it look like anything else than a self-published blog. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  ~ ToBeFree, it has nothing in common with a blog. (People are very careless with that word, including that the use of many blogs is far from what it used to be, so we do accept those by subject experts, businesses, and politicians. It is the diary type blog and readers' comments which we deprecate.)

  Barrett's articles published on his own QW website are of course SPS, but not other content or articles by others that are part of that huge database. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously. "an international network of people who are concerned about" some topic or other could mean just about anything. Insofar as Barrett is considered a subject-matter expert (I have no idea if he is), then his writing could be WP:DUE for opinions attributed directly to him. Otherwise the site has all the hallmarks of a group blog. Claiming it isn't because it doesn't use "blog software" and so forth is equivocating with the meaning of "blog". A blog can be anything from someone's Tumblr account to a professional WP:NEWSBLOG. Quackwatch is a self-published website according to its own mission statement, which describes the site and others as "Dr. Barrett's ... sites". The contact address is listed as Barrett's own; there's no masthead or any other sign of editorial oversight and/or independent fact-checking that I can see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf, in spite of repeated explanations that QW is not a blog and has none of the features characteristic of blogs, you repeat that accusation above. What are you really trying to say? Are you saying that anyone can post there, or are you saying something else? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  I realy don't think hammering at the same points over and over is helping the discussion. I've indicated what I think of the merits of said "explanations" already. Whether "anyone can post" does not determine whether something is a blog or not. What I'm "trying to say" is exactly what I did say; QW is quite evidently a self-published website and therefore should not be considered generally reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf, thanks for the clarification. Just as long as you don't use the term blog to describe QW we're on more solid ground. Using it as a slur just muddies the water for a website which myriad RS consider a very valuable source, and as the website of a renowned subject it is indeed considered a generally RS, but that is not the subject under discussion.

  This RfC is about the use of a SPS in a BLP, which is not allowed. That would not apply to QW as a website, but only to articles written by Barrett and self-published at QW, not to articles written by others and published there, just as we do with any newspaper or magazine. Only the articles by the Editor-in-Chief and employees can be considered self-published.

  It also would only apply to using such articles by Barrett about the person, not their false claims. I'll address the MEDRS issue below.

  I suggest that you read the Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett articles before you participate in an RfC of this nature, as failures to understand them has consequences here. Perform due diligence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  I suggest you refrain from casting WP: ASPERSIONS on your fellow editors. I have read both articles, which overall seem bloated with WP:PROMOTIONAL content that makes me question the site even more. For articles written by others on the site to be usable, Barrett would need to be considered a reputable publisher first. That's highly debatable from what I can see. The comparison to the editor-in-chief of a newspaper or magazine is apt, since QW seems to have no such professional structure in place. This idea that an SPS isn't an SPS when the site's owner lets his buddies post there is frankly ridiculous. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'd also second Masem's point about WP:MEDRS, which seems to be a large topic area for the site; we should avoid citing it for any biomedical information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf, we do not use QW for such medical content, but for content related to false and misleading claims which are often of a medical nature. The two subjects may seem identical, but they are not. They just happen to overlap. In the process of dealing with such content, history shows that editors are perfectly capable of figuring out when to use which policy so as not to violate MEDRS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely yes looks most definitely like a self-published source. No published editorial team, no indication of paid editors, and its contributors, regardless of whatever qualifications and credentials they may hold, are still contributors that either self-invite themselves to join or are invited by the site's owners. If Quackwatch is not a self-published source, applying the same methodology, we'd have to include ICANNWatch and Wikipediocracy as not self-published sources. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• No per CatCafe, JzG, and BullRangifer. -Crossroads- (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• No. I'll stay away from the "per" trope except to say the Blue Rasberry and JzG summarize a lot of my views I don't need to pad the RfC further with. Others above had already established there is editorial oversight where most articles are reviewed by another expert, and editorial oversight is the bar for this discussion. That act of professionalism crosses the bar differentiating from being a simple blog post and at least makes it so this RfC cannot be closed as a blanket yes. Given this particular source's reputation for fact checking as an expert source, etc., it doesn't match with WP:SPS as Blue Rasberry discusses. On the SPS continuum between a random blog and the highest quality newspaper, Quackwatch may not be as clear cut in terms of its editorial process compared to that high-quality newspaper example, but not occupying the highest end of the spectrum doesn't put it in the bottom of the barrel of the other side of the spectrum either. A lot of comments above seem to be making that mistake (especially comparing it to something like Wikipediocracy), and BullRangifer addresses a lot of those problems coming up in this disccusion that need to weighed in assessing consensus per WP:NOTVOTE.

There's also WP:LETTER issues in play where the spirit of avoiding SPS is based on avoiding sources anyone can easily create without any barrier (i.e., bottom of the SPS spectrum again). That includes things like the traditional sense of a blog where someone can just sign up on wordpress or whatever the flavor of the week is nowadays, uploading a self-published book pdf to a host, etc. When someone creates a media organization with oversight and a reputation for fact checking, that at least in the spirit of the policy, moves it away from being an SPS. It's not the random yayhoo SPS is meant to target. That doesn't mean such content shouldn't be without attribution, which I think the consensus historically has been that it's perfectly fine to use Quackwatch with attribution in cases where WP:PARITY applies, so we'd be running into other WP:PAG issues trying to exclude the use of the source here. WP:FRINGEBLP is clear we also need to weigh other issues besides whether a source is self-published or not, so whether use or not of Quackwatch significantly affects things like WP:DUE, WP:PROFRINGE, or WP:BLPBALANCE needs to be done on a case-by-case at the relevant BLP, not at an overarching RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, even if I play devil's advocate and say this definitely is an SPS, that doesn't functionally change anything. SPS policy is very clear on what spurred this RfC (my bolding): 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. There's plenty of guidance scattered around on what a third-party source is. Quackwatch already is supposed to get attribution anyways, so current useage already wouldn't conflict with BLP policy even if it was classified as SPS. If someone was trying to entirely exclude Quackwatch based on that part of BLP-related policy, that would be misuse of the policy. You just couldn't use it as a third-party entirely disinterested source is all, hence the attribution when using it instead as a non-third-party. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, per JzG and BullRangifer. I don't feel I can add anything more than that, other than to wonder at some of the "Yes" voters ruleslawyering to get the results they want. --Calton | Talk 14:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Calton: Do you really wonder though? PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is a self-published website. The fact that it involves various people does not change that. Many of its articles may be written by experts and therefore usable in non-BLP contexts, but it will never be acceptable in the BLP context. It will be necessary to look for peer-reviewed journal articles, published books and other reliable sources when dealing with BLPs. Neljack (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - It's a self-published website. As noted above, that makes it ineligible for use in BLPs but it's still useful in other contexts under a different justification. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - and I see that Nil Einne has already elaborated the distinction that I was going to make, so I won't belabor the point by repeating it. shoy (reactions) 16:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Quackwatch)

• Note: Self-published sources should not be used as third-party sources for living persons, per WP:BLPSPS. Changes to WP:BLPSPS are outside the scope of this RfC, and should be proposed at WT:BLP if needed. — Newslinger talk 23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment: Due to the contentiousness of this topic, a panel of uninvolved administrators will be requested to close this RfC. — Newslinger talk 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Talk:Quackwatch, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Doc James: Quackwatch Inc. was disolved 11 years ago, in 2008. - Bilby (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• According to Quackwatch the site is peer-reviewed. QuackGuru (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some times "It depends on the nature of the article and how confident I am that I understand the subject in detail.". The problem is we do not know how often, or which are.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That is misleading to take the content out of context. Also see "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts."[53] QuackGuru (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • And most is not all, so (again) we do not know which or how many. So any article (even if it is only about the science) may not have undergone any peer review process.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
        • That is another misleading statement. Most articles related to the scientific basis are reviewed by at least one expert, while others are reviewed by more than one expert. QuackGuru (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Which part is misleading? "some does not mean all"? or "we do not know which or how,many"? Ohh and it does not say "while others are reviewed by more than one expert." it says "Some are reviewed by many experts", that may well include all of those listed under "at least one relevant expert".Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
            • "And most is not all" is your personal opinion. Quackwatch did not say there are articles related to the scientific basis that are not reviewed. They explained most are reviewed by at least one expert and there are other articles that are reviewed by many experts. Everything else is speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
              • And if they had meant all they would have said all. "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert. Some are reviewed by many experts." does not say all are peer reviewed. Also does it differentiate between news and "science articles"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
                • QuackGuru also left out the next sentence where Barrett states "News articles are not usually reviewed prior to posting". [54] However, having some articles checked before you publish them doesn't change who the publisher is - the author and publisher are still the same person, so it is still being selfpublished, even if Barrett seeks advice on some articles. - Bilby (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a question for you. All across the USA there are small-town newspapers where one person owns the paper, writes the copy, does the editing, and makes every decision, all without any sort of editorial board or peer review. Stories in such small-town newspapers are the backbone of many of our BLP articles -- they are often the only source of information about a notable individual from before they became famous. Theoretically, If I were to post an RfC asking whether all such newspapers are self published sources and thus not allowed to be used in BLPs, would you !vote yes? If not, please explain your reasoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My answer would be the same as for the daily Myth below, two wrongs do not make a right. Yes if a newspaper is owned edited and (largely) written by one man its an SPS, that is what policy says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would give a more nuanced answer: It depends. For a statement such as “Joe attended Smalltown High School and graduated with honors in 1975”, the local paper is not a self published source. But for a statement like “Even in his student days, Joe was a quack” then yes, the paper is self published. The difference is that on the second sentence, the editor/reporter is inserting his personal opinion into his reporting. He is self publishing his opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would give the same nuanced answer if I could, and I would apply the same nuance to Quackwatch if I could. Alas, WP:BLPSPS makes no allowances for such nuances, neither does this RfC, and neither would my imaginary RfC asking the same question about small town newspapers. Either they are self-published, in which case they are self-published for both claims about Joe, or they are not self-published, in which case they are not self-published for either claim about Joe.

So what is the answer to this dilemna? The answer is to determine that neither the small town newspapers nor quackwatch are self-published, and instead make the decision on reliability. For a statement such as "Joe attended Smalltown High School and graduated with honors in 1975", the local paper is a reliable and non-self-published source. For a statement like "Even in his student days, Joe was a quack" the local paper is a nonreliable but still non-self-published source.

The publisher/writer/editor of The Smalltown News is considered a subject-matter-expert on the subject of who attended Smalltown High School in 1975 and whether they graduated. The publisher/writer/editor of The Smalltown News is not a subject-matter-expert and thus not reliable on the subject of who is and who is not a Quack.

By abandoning the SPS classification, which allows for no nuance, and instead embracing the "reliable for this but unreliable for that" classification, which is already baked into our policy on identifying reliable sources, we allow the highly desirable nuance you describe. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Its called consistency, either these are SPS or wp:sps needs to be revamped.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What we have is WP:SPS (per WP:V), WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB (per WP:BLP) and all are policy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And dictionaries, because WP:SPS doesn't define what the term "self-published" means, so the normal English meaning is the place to start. A typical dictionary definition says (or said, the last time I looked, which was probably five to ten years ago) that self-publishing is when the author publishes his/her own work, except for traditional publishing houses. In other words, typical newspapers are automatically exempted from self-published status, no matter how few people are involved. (I don't think that single-human newspapers are that common, though. They do exist – The Mulberry Advance, if it still exists, was a one-man labor of love for a long time – but having a couple of people involved seems to be more typical, and with newspapers being sold to larger companies, sometimes the same few people all work on multiple, theoretically separate newspapers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I keep seeing the argument brought up that the site is peer reviewed. That appears to be mostly false. What review that does happen is not specified and at the discretion of the site owner. No reviews are named nor their qualifications. Basically there is no discernible review. Simple as that. PackMecEng (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is a reminder. Scientific related articles appear to be mostly peer-reviewed. See "Most articles that discuss the scientific basis (or lack of scientific basis) of health claims are reviewed by at least one relevant expert."[55] The site is expert peer-reviewed. Wow! QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Most is not all, that is an important distinction. Can you say which articles are and which are not? If not then my point stands. Also who are they and what are their qualifications? No one knows there either. PackMecEng (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • PackMecEng, your questions are answered below in a new section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Great! A 13 to 16 year old list of people he might of worked with on certain unspecified articles at his discretion. That might answer part but not the trust of the question in general. The other thing to note is what is the question here? It is if Quackwatch is a SPS. According to WP:USESPS it comes down to if the publisher and writer are the same person it is a SPS. Pretty much regardless of anything else. Which is the case here. PackMecEng (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • We agree that only Barrett's articles are SPS. QW is not an SPS. Otherwise, your dissing of a recognized expert is really out of line. Why the disrespect? That's uncalled for. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Hopefully we also agree that the "articles" that are not written by Barrett may or may not have appeared in a reliable source, and if they did, we should cite the reliable source, not Barrett's web site. It's an easy solution that allows us to continue following our policies.- MrX 🖋 16:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
              • MrX, yes, we agree. Barrett does republish, with permission, articles that may currently appear, or no longer appear, on other sources. If they still exist on those original sources, we can cite those sources, rather than QW.

  One of the goals of QW is to publish information that is hard to find or no longer exists on other sources, so many times we will treat QW as a secondary/tertiary source and use QW for that content. This may be quality articles by other subject experts, scientific research formerly found on the websites of recognized medical journals, court filings, government documents, and historical records and books. I used to use the website a lot and never got close to plumbing the depths of that database. It's huge.

  When I find an article from another RS or subject expert that used to appear elsewhere, but now is only published at QW, I form my citation as if it was from the original source, with the URL to QW being the only difference. I have done this several times. Sorry for the delay in replying. Too many things on my plate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I reject the implication that there is a straightforward demarcation to be had regarding publication provenance and source quality. Quackwatch is an excellent source for sussing out (pseudo-)medical practices and practitioners who are otherwise left unidentified by the credulous. That's how it should be used. If people are afraid of defamation, they should demonstrate errors that Quackwatch has published. I've yet to find anything that was erroneous. Sometimes their choice in rhetoric is combative, but that is an issue of tone and not of reliability. jps (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As I touched upon earlier, WP:BLPSPS makes no allowances for such nuances as "no straightforward demarcation to be had". BLPSPS is binary; either a source always is or always is not. The answer is to determine that Quackwatch (like my small town newspaper example above) is not self-published, and instead make the decision on reliability. Quackwatch is reliable for some claims, and unreliable for others, just like any other generally reliable source. By abandoning the SPS classification, which allows for no nuance, and instead embracing the "reliable for this but unreliable for that" classification, we acknowledge the fact that there really is no straightforward demarcation to be had regarding source quality, which is a concept that already baked into our sourcing policy; see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is bad policy that was unduly influenced by partisans here at Wikipedia who are part of the WP:CRYBLP faction famously angry about global warming denialists being so labeled by scientists. It erroneously engages in an arbitrary sorting of sources that does not reflect the actual reliability of the sources and instead just looks at accidents of publication. This has led to nonsense stick-in-the-muddism by rule sticklers. To give a hypothetical example of how ridiculous this policy is: Let's say the Surgeon General of the United States says on WP:TWITTER, "John Doe is wrong to promote cigarette smoking as a cure for cancer." As I read BLPSPS, this would not be allowed to be in John Doe's biography. That's a bad policy. jps (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And this is not the right venue for that discussion, if policy is bad we change it, we do not ignore it (which has been what I have been saying since this started).Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I categorically reject the idiocy of saying we can't discuss the shittiness of the BLP policy here as it directly conflicts with WP:RS. WP:IAR is a fucking pillar of the project. So go complain elsewhere. jps (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware policy cannot be changed on this type of notice board, sure we can slag it off as much as we like. But we cannot change it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, there's no such rule. It'd be unusual, and in practice it'd probably fail if you didn't leave at least a little {{please see}} on the talk pages of any policies or guidelines that the proposal could affect, but there is no required location for such discussions. You can have those discussions on any discussion page, so long as you make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to discover that the discussion is happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The situation is complex, hence why it is good to determine first if QW is an SPS or not. At which point, then the question of whether BLPSPS is hampering its use, should it be determined as an SPS, can be asked. I should note that outside that BLPs, being an SPS does not otherwise change what I read it is otherwise being a reliable source on quackery, simply that how it gets used at BLPSPS needs to be asked as a wholly new question. --Masem (t) 16:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That is (distractions aside) exactly what this is about, its use for comments about living people, not comments about science, or theories or claims, just people.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if QW is determined NOT to be an SPS that goes away. If it is determined to be an SPS, we need to figure out the line, as BLPSPS right now reads that NO SPS may be used, even if it is for discussing someone's presented theory, and not the person themselves. --Masem (t) 16:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And my point is being slavishly devoted to WP:BLPSPS as a "non-negotiable" aspect of policy is what has got us into the mess of people removing extremely reliable information from biographies sourced to QW. How QW is published is categorically irrelevant to whether the material is reliable or not, but the raison d'etre of the BLPSPS policy is that SPS sources are never reliable for BLPs. I have been arguing that this is wrong for a decade now and I'm not going to back down just because people think there is some kind of stare decisis. If a statement published in QW is reliably made, it should be allowed to be used in Wikipedia whether it is a BLP or a road article or a snippet on the Main Page. jps (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't change a policy by ignoring it, categorically rejecting it, or creating a guideline that contradicts it. If your view is that BLPSPS should be changed, you or anyone else can readily propose such at WT:BLP. I don't understand why nobody has done that. - MrX 🖋 17:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted this whole thing started at a post at BLP/N about QW and BLPs. I think since (after it being moved to here, RS/N) that several fair questions on BLPSPS have been raised, even separate from this QW one and speaking to broader terms, have been raised, but it doesn't make sense to muddy this ongoing RFC with a fresh one at BLP that overlaps significantly. --Masem (t) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:Masem followed it back further finding this latest Quackwatch dispute originated at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard on 30 October. Discussion still there. Whatever happens I hope Quackwatch is clarified so there's less confusion in future. CatCafe (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Part of the frustration is that this didn't start with removing content based on Quackwatch, but simply replacing Quackwatch references with ones that weren't self published. I don't see this as starting from slavishly following BLP, but slavishly trying to protect a prefered source even when it wasn't needed. That said, the issue of reliablity includes what checks exist in a process - if something is self published, it might potentially be correct, and it might generally be reliable, but without the checks of a separate publisher and writer it is more likely that libel will sneak in compared to a source which does have those checks. - Bilby (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

without the checks of a separate publisher and writer it is more likely that libel will sneak in compared to a source which does have those checks. this statement is so wrong as to be risable. I guess I should just say, or, how the hell did you decide this was the case? jps (talk) 03:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll just quote SarahSV, who put it better than me above: "a self-published site is one where you can wake up at three in the morning and, sitting in bed in your pyjamas, tap out an article and press "publish", without having to check first with a professional staff of fact-checkers, copy editors, a managing editor, an editor-in-chief, the company lawyers, or a publisher". - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This rationale ignominiously suffers from the fallacy of composition. Reliability is not something you can determine on the basis of publisher=author. jps (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure there is WP:SPS, WP:BLPSPS, and WP:USESPS. They all talk about how it can be a problem of reliability if publisher=author. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't really deal with my point, but thanks for playing. jps (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want us to stop ignoring policy, you're going to have to change fundamental policy at this website, darling. jps (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Or... you could just follow established policy and use proper venues to changes things you have an issue with? Crazy right? PackMecEng (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Dunno. WP:IAR looks pretty dang established and proper to me. jps (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly is, but if that is the only thing you have going for you and all these people are saying you are wrong so it is not a IAR situation. It is a ILIKEIT situation, which yeah not supported by policy. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Lol. I have other things going for me, thanks. jps (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Question: Given that this seems likely to end in no-consensus, where exactly does no-consensus leave us in this position? GMG^talk 15:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a non-non-consensus close here: it is either one way or the other. If the closers can't determine consensus from this, then the only thing that we can go on it how it has been seen in practice in the past which is the point of the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 44, which at that point, would likely have put QW as an SPS (the whole issue about changing BLPSPS to allow QW). --Masem (t) 16:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We are not a democracy, it is arguments based upon policy that count, not votes. If policy is wrong that is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, policy can't possibly exhaustively tell us which sources are SPS and which are not. In that respect, it does become somewhat more like a vote in making these subjective assessments, at least so long as the arguments made on both sides reasonably adhere to common sense. GMG^talk 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is pretty clear an unequivocal as to how we identify SPS

Who is the author or creator of the work?

Who is the publisher of the work?

If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published.

It adds "In determining whether a source is self-published, you should not consider any other factors. Neither the subject material, nor the size of the entity, nor whether the source is printed on paper or available electronically, nor whether the author is a famous expert, makes any difference."

So it is pretty clear what policy says.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well yes, I don't really need policy to tell me that much. That doesn't really change people above arguing that it's not SPS because some proportion of the content is written by someone else, or because those that are SPS are "peer reviewed" by...someone...who has...some authority? GMG^talk 22:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

True, but many of the arguments are based upon the expertise or factual accuracy of the cite. Also only some of the content (as the site itself says) undergoes review by "experts", and the site does not identify which article have been so reviewed. A pucker non SPS sends all articles for reviews, not just those on the subjects the editor/owner does not understand in detail. In essence Barrett decides which articles to send for peer review (as was said above he can if he wishes just publish, and there is nothing stopping him).Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It is disrespectful to see above in the 9.9.1 Survey section, where editors are allowed to add comments, without actually voting, after other people's votes thinking they have the right to correct or challenge them. This is like me going to vote at a Federal election then a guy comes up to my booth to see what boxes I ticked, then tells the room and mocks me for my choice. That would be unlawful. It's chaos in 9.9.1 especially seeing there's a 9.9.2 Comments section for comments. CatCafe (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

We do not use "voting" in consensus discussions. One or more uninvolved admins will review the input above and decide which side has made the most compelling argument within policies and guidelines. This does allow editors to comment on other editors' input in this manner. --Masem (t) 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree. There is a survey section for individual's Yes, No or Mu response to surveys. There's a comments section for the opportunity to comment. There is separate sections for this, otherwise it is chaos in my opinion. And the term "vote" or "!vote" was used dozens of times in the discussion prior to the "survey" being posted. CatCafe (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment came across as disrespectful, CatCafe. Replies are allowed in survey sections of partitioned RfCs, although extended discussions can always be moved to the discussion section by any editor if needed. On the English Wikipedia, the only election that resembles a federal election is the annual Arbitration Committee Elections. For all other centralized discussions, the use of the word vote is generally discouraged in favor of other terms to reflect the ideas described in WP:NOTVOTE. Not all editors use the term !vote every single time, but !vote is usually what is implied when we refer to "voting". — Newslinger talk 04:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem, your comment was pretty innocuous compared to the lengthy corrective debates I see after other peoples 'survey responses'. I can only see one reason why a 'comments' section was created, and that's for those other lengthy discussions such as I see in 9.9.1. It's wierd to read about people taking a 'vote' or '!vote', then when they do, I am corrected for assuming the survey akin to a vote. Lingo-twisting - not for me. CatCafe (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 raised a good point about how self-published doesn't necessarily mean "bad". I would extend that point to general reliability as well: generally unreliable sources (and some deprecated sources) aren't necessarily "bad" sources; they just don't meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards in the majority of cases. For example, I personally find YouTube (RSP entry) to be a good source of useful tutorial videos, even though many of them are self-published and shouldn't be cited in articles. When we conflate aspects of a source with "goodness" or "badness", we obscure our goal of determining the source's appropriate use cases on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 19:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, I think you are on to something when you talk about “appropriateness”. This is not the same as “reliability”. A reliable source can be inappropriate, and (on rare occasions) an unreliable source can be appropriate. And “Appropriateness” has another factor: content. As we craft article, we need to ask whether some bit of content is appropriate or not ... and the answer CAN be “no” even if that content can be supported by a reliable source. Is it ever appropriate to call someone a “quack”? That is debatable. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, fortunately this isn't a problem because Barrett doesn't usually use that language (in spite of the name of the QW website), and we don't use QW to label people as quacks. Even if we did, it is not libel, just an imprecise slur that lacks practical value here. We don't need to worry about this, as any such addition would promptly be removed.

Barrett does use the word in a historical sense, but I don't recall him using it about living people who practice quackery. This article is really good: Quackery: How Should It Be Defined? The word "quack" is used only once (to define it), but "quackery" many times. It's a real word. He is usually much more specific in his terminology, as explained in that article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Checking some of the references under Quackwatch#Influence, the recommendations by RSes and other organizations seem to be in a very generalized way, naming QW as one of several "resources" for information. In evaluating WP:USEBYOTHERS, I believe we want sources using QW for specific subject matter that's relevant to the topic area being written about here, per WP:RSCONTEXT. If anyone could post examples of such use by published RSes, that could be helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Scientific and legal advisors

Let's get this right. There is a large group of experts. The lists were posted up until March 2006:

• Scientific and Technical Advisory Board (152 members, updated 3/28/03)
• Legal Advisory Board (28 members, updated 3/31/06)
• How to Become a Quackwatch Advisor

"When the number was small, we listed them online, but as it grew, the task of keeping a directory up to date became far more trouble than it was worth."

• What is Quackwatch?

"Quackwatch is an international network of people who are concerned about health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. From 1970 through 2007, it operated as a nonprofit corporation headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The corporation was dissolved in 2008, but the informal network will continue as usual."

• Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch. He is a competitive swimmer and medal winner.

BullRangifer (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It might be me, but we only have "help prepare articles", I am not sure if that counts as Peer review or not. In fact I see no mention of peer review in their list of activities, which takes us back to which articles are peer reviewed, how can we tell? The site explicitly says that "news" articles are never peer reviewed, it does not say what they are or identifies them as far as I can tell. Thus any given article maybe a "news" article. In fact I find this evasiveness from the site rather concerning, it is almost as if it is being written to with our RS polices (and wikilawyering) in mind.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not reasonable to expect us to trust that these unnamed advisors exist, let alone that they are qualified to debunk medical claims. Transparency is important. - MrX 🖋 13:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not reasonable It seems to work given the recognition Quackwatch has received. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Our duty is to accept the judgment of RS, and they all consider QW to be a quality and reliable source of information for the subject matter it deals with.

The only question we should be dealing with is this new complaint that we shouldn't be using it for people in BLPs. This has never been an issue in previous RfCs, but we do need to settle this specific issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

One gets a clear impression from many of the comments here that editors are not performing due diligence. They haven't even read the Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett articles. Until they do, they shouldn't comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that "peer review" is a straw man issue. Websites are never peer-reviewed, and that one reviewer complained that it wasn't peer-reviewed got people expecting something they should not expect. We don't expect this from other websites. QW is not pretending to be a scientific journal, where peer-review is expected. We shouldn't even be discussing this as if it were a "lack". -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the claim that it is peer reviewed is being used as the basis of saying that it isn't self published. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is neither here nor there. A source can be SPS and peer-reviewed, and it can be peer-reviewed and not an SPS.

This is all we need to know: Does Barrett own QW and is Editor-in-Chief? Yes. Ergo, the articles he writes and publishes there are therefore SPS. It's that simple. This does not apply to articles written by others. Now we just need to tweak the policy to make it clear that this applies to the BLP person, not their false claims. The two things can be written about separately and sourced separately. Barrett's articles can still be used for the claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That was my understanding. But it is not the understanding shared by everyone !voting. - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that unfortunate situation should be fixed. The delimitations of the scope of this RfC must be reinforced clearly. It should be explained that misunderstandings lead to ineligible !votes which will not be counted. That is standard procedure in RfCs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If Barrett authored QW are considered reliable due to Barrett meeting the clause at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications., not due to meeting the general requirements at WP:RS & WP:SOURCE then the question of the non-Barrett authored articles is within the scope of this RfC. Are they not reliable because of a lack of effective editorial control? Are they reliable SPS; the authors themselves experts? Or is there sufficient evidence of Barrett exercising editorial control to make them ordinarily reliable? - Ryk72 ^talk 07:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the remit of this RfC is strictly about the intersection of SPS and BLP, which would only apply to Barrett's articles at QW, not other authors or Barrett's articles published elsewhere.

For uses other than the BLP person, such as misleading claims, Barrett is considered a "self-published expert source" for health fraud, quackery, consumer protection, nutrition, dietary, and public health subjects. ("In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University.")

QW has always been determined (by RfCs) a generally RS for the appropriate topics, just as we do with other RS. Barrett exercises editorial control over all the content published at QW, so it's good, but just like all other RS, there is no such thing as a blanket "yes". We use QW and other RS on a case by case basis, and we attribute when necessary. Barrett has functioned as an editor in many capacities outside of QW for many years, including books, magazines, and publishing houses. He is generally recognized as the world's top expert on these subjects and his work has garnered many awards and other recognitions.

Another area of expertise is swimming. He is still a competitive swimmer and instructor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Barrett's writings could be considered a reliable source for swimming content too? Also "it should be explained that misunderstandings lead to ineligible !votes which will not be counted" -> nice attempt at trying to discount all views contrary to yours, way to go to reach a consensus. Signimu (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Signimu, swimming? LOL! No, I don't think he writes about that, and I suspect there are much better sources for that topic, but I just threw that out to let others know he's still, at his advanced age, quite active in other areas than quack busting.

"..views contrary to" mine? Please AGF and look at the context in which I wrote that. This RfC is about the use of (1) SPS in BLPs, not about the (2) reliability of QW in general. If !voters don't understand that this RfC is only about the first, they may be !voting about the second, when it is ONLY the first that is relevant. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Ah sorry, I didn't understand in the context of the same sentence reply, but with your previous comment it makes sense. I agree several editors are arguing about whether QW is a reliable source or not, which is not the purpose of this RfC (and was clarified several times just above in previous discussions...). Signimu (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• BullRangifer has stated on his talk page that he has worked as the Assistant Listmaster for Quackwatch's Healthfraud Discussion list. There is also a 2007 ArbCom case on Quackwatch to which BullRangifer (formerly known as Fyslee) was a part of. Yet despite this apparent WP:COI, BullRangifer has made dozens of comments in this thread and voted in the RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  Pudeo, you really need to get up to date. You're using old information which I address in a thread on my talk page: I have to ask. (I haven't had anything to do with that Kentucky discussion group for the last 12 years, and never had anything to do with the QW website. I have never met or spoken to Barrett.) Please read that thread, and then ask me on my talk page, not here, if you have any proven concerns. Until then, your ignorance is not my bliss.

  One of the ArbCom decisions was a caution (I guess they felt they had to write something, since I was found to have done nothing wrong.) which I follow in every detail, and it doesn't forbid editing or discussing: "3.1) Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits."

  If you find that my editing or comments are problematic, then don't make vague COI accusations without being very specific. Otherwise, you're just casting aspersions. Talking about that ArbCom experience is painful because I discovered that normal evidentiary rules do not apply, libelous statements are allowed without any attempt to stop them, and BLP does NOT apply to editors, only to all other living human beings. That experience nearly cost me my life. It was that bad. So if you ever have any concerns, approach me on my talk page or by email. I'll appreciate that approach. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek RfC

Newsweek has been discussed here several times this year (see [56] [57] [58]) but no real consensus around whether it is a reliable source has been reached. This RfC seeks to come to a consensus whether Newsweek is and ever was a reliable source. This is important as it is being used as a reference in thousands of articles newsweek.com  . This RfC is divided into two parts in order to find consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 1 (Reliability) and discussion

Question 1: Is Newsweek generally reliable in its areas of expertise?

• No. In the last two weeks it has been called a zombie publication by Slate and accused of selling off its legacy by the Columbia Journalism Review. The Atlantic article, the Wall Street Journal article and Politico article are among the many other publications that have covered Newsweek's decline; there are more if those aren't your publications of choice. It's a sad state for one of the great American newsmagazines to find itself in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, not anymore. Too many reliable sources have documented the current lack of journalistic quality. Schazjmd (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Sadly, not anymore. It is not currently publishing reliable stuff; it was once one of the three (along with Time and US News and World Report) largest and best respected weekly US news magazines, but alas it appears it is no longer. --Jayron32 14:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think it is still generally reliable - as many others noted during the most recent discussion. It does not mean everyone should blindly trust this or any other source. All news sources were criticized. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  While that discussion was relatively recent I would suggest the discourse has changed. The Slate article seems to have traction with other publications reiterating the Zombie line e.g. (NY Mag &The Ringer. I would also suggest that conversation didn't include the Atlantic or WSJ article. To which I could also add this from The Guardian or this from the Washington Post both from 2018 about the internal discord which has resulted in the CJR and Slate bigger picture analysis. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Generally reliable. Most articles on WP editors want at least two sources, so this is one source. Lightburst (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• In broad terms, generally reliable, but my answer is better explained in Question 2. --Masem (t) 03:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I was going to say that it had declined but could still be used, but after reading those stories I'm leaning towards generally unreliable (and I suggest people commenting read them, too; they're pretty alarming.) The CJR source suggests a definite lack of fact-checking (Lack of knowledge on a topic doesn’t stop them from assigning stories, which has led to Newsweek wrongly declaring that Japanese citizens want to go to war with North Korea and incorrectly reporting that the girlfriend of Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock was a polygamist). I'm also particularly concerned about the first paragraph of the Politico piece, which reads Despite the late hour, I dropped a note to an editor who took the story down off the website. You can see the link on Google, but if you click, you’ll get “Error 404. PAGE NOT FOUND.” There’s no correction, which is what a normal news company might post. Quietly removing a story is not the same as a correction, especially from our perspective - if someone cited that inaccurate story here, we would just switch to an archived link with no further correction. That piece goes on to list a series of similar errors in the next paragraph. More importantly, both these and other sources describe this as part of a general pattern of decline stemming from cost-cutting, rather than as individual lapses. --Aquillion (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards generally unreliable. I'm particularly concerned that they appear to just completely take down stories rather than issuing a correction or publishing something indication what was originally at the link was withdrawn. While we do have a problem with live updating stories randomly changing, it's IMO way over the line if a source just tries to erase history when they screwed up. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable but used with caution, removing incorrect stories shows sincerity even if it does make things awkward for us at Wikipedia. Also assessment of Newsweek based on articles in rival media should be treated with caution as a number of them have a vested interest in denigrating their rivals, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  I would suggest The Atlantic (as a monthly publication) and CJR (as a publication devoted to media analysis) are not rival publications. The fact that other also non-rival publications have picked up Slate's terminology suggest that the criticism from Slate isn't owing to being a competitor. To me a publication ceases to be generally reliable when they do things like pull a piece off-line rather than fact correct. No longer being generally reliable doesn't make them unreliable - it just means that they don't get an automatic presumption and we would have to do things like look at whether other RS have confirmed the coverage or otherwise reported on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Masem. That doesn't mean a single article can't be questioned (which should be generally true for all sources) but generally reliable. Springee (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per above arguments, and particularly the CJR coverage. That having been said, given the publication's household name status, I would anticipate further editorial shakeups and/or changes in ownership, which could put the source back on the right path. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, given its status (can news-sources truly lose reliability?), but individual articles can and should be questioned, per Springee and WP:NEWSORG. I am also fully cognizant of Moxy's advice to find a better source, if possible; and I present that as the best possible practice. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable At least in a broad sense. It meets the definition but, like every source, it is case by case. PackMecEng (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - as most breaking news is per WP:RECENTISM, and politics, particularly contemporary news in the highly competitive clickbait environment, and what appears to be a paradigm shift to opinion tainted journalism. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• DEPENDS ON CONTEXT, GENERALLY OK ON GENERAL JOURNALISM. Need to distinguish opinion pieces from regular coverage, and what period the piece occurred in due to changing hands in past years, or distinguish if it’s the weekly print vs the online site may matter. MediaBiasFactCheck and mediamatters indicate moderate left bias by story selection, word choices may be loaded for sensationalism or advocacy, and topic may have been simplified for the reader. Criticized from right for stories usually having left slant, and criticized from left some for conveying right views, so it’s not entirely biased. There seems a semi-traditional editorial control with good transparency (their About Us page lists links to Corrections, Contact Us, Editorial Guidelines) and middling decent reputation. There have been examples of substantive retraction, and mention seen of a stretch circa early 2018 of bad fact checks. I’m not seeing scholarly expertise in any technical area or in-depth analysis per their general-readership market, but they seem a reasonable place for general coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Unreliable - This decline had been starting to show in the late 1990's and soon after 9/11, other magazines began noting the pandering and general lack of journalistic integrity. Cn they still throw together the '4 W's'? Sure, and clown in j-school can do that. But integrity? That starts from the top down and anything less would be career defenestration. Newsweek has long since pancaked on the pavement below. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Unreliable, at least after 2015 or so. While the reliable sources talking about how Newsweek is now owned by crazy content-shovelers are the most important part, on a personal note, I have seen a Newsweek article on an area of my expertise in 2019 and it was wholly fabricated. Like, there's something that might have happened that would have generated search traffic, and the rushed author just assumed it would happen and shipped a story on it claiming it did when it didn't, citing, uh, one person complaining on Twitter about something unrelated. This is terrifying and casts doubt on why anything at all should be trusted from them. SnowFire (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Question 2 (Date) and discussion

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is no when did it stop being generally reliable in its area of expertise (e.g. 2015, it never was, etc)?

• I would argue sources show it's not been reliable since it was bought by IBT in 2011 and there was a further steep decline in 2017. I would suggest it was generally reliable before then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, The Politico article points out "in 2016 the magazine was nominated for a National Magazine Award for General Excellence for one of just a handful of times in its 80-plus year history." (That was under Jim Impoco's leadership.) Also, it was sold in 2010 but not to IBT; they bought it in 2013. I just want to add that I found this RFC very sad. I haven't read Newsweek in a long time, but knew them as a respected periodical and I had no idea they'd crumbled so badly. Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Schazjmd, yeah I think that's fair. It's why I noted the dual cut-off. There was definitely good journalism done post-2011 but there processes and motivations were different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Will just note that I think Jayron's sliding scale comment just below better encapsulates my thinking on its reliability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would say generally reliable before 2013, not reliable after due to the documented push for clickbait and page views after IBT bought it. Schazjmd (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would say that there's a sliding scale of reliability that looks good before the 2011ish time period, but gets progressively less reliable over time, however they still do occasionally publish good things, as noted above. I would say that prior to about 2011, I wouldn't bat an eye at anything cited to Newsweek, but the further we get from that, the more their stories should be cross-checked against other sources. --Jayron32 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree pre-2011 Newsweek was rarely a source to blink at in terms of quality and reliability. Since 2011, and moreso lately, it has slipped into clickbait journalism, with stories with no real meaning or impact, though they still have appropriate coverage. (eg [59] looks fine pulled from its front page). I would use a different source if it was possible for stories like this. But when it comes to stories like [60] this which I am amazed to even see there, yeeeeeah. Post-2011, Newsweek should be used with caution, but generally still reliable. --Masem (t) 03:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• That was a great assessment with great links. And I agree with you. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As others have said, pre-2011 Newsweek is on par with any other major news publication. Based on the information available, I think that 2017 is when we clearly move into unreliable territory, with 2011–2016 comprising a gray area. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• I can't be much help with figuring out if Newsweek still is reliable or when it stopped being reliable. However, I can vouch for it in its 20th century heyday. My understanding is that back then, Newsweek and similar periodicals were the most reliable news sources. They had more currency and coverage than books, and their looser deadlines let them do better fact checking than newspapers. If Newsweek is deprecated, I suggest we have separate entries for its heyday and zombie periods. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

We should use only the best sources posible. If a source is questionable ( especially in the public sphere) we should default to maintain the Integrity of Wikipedia and find a stronger source.--Moxy 🍁 15:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The responses to Question 1 are more polarized than I expected. In a March 2019 RfC, there was consensus that the general reliability of Bustle (RSP entry) was "Unclear or additional considerations apply" after evidence was presented that compared the publication's operations to a content farm. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

News of the World

• newsoftheworld.co.uk   / newsoftheworld.com  
• News of the World

This paper was legendary in its day as a scandal sheet with an unusually loose association with both truth and journalistic ethics. I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have to this site. Guy (help!) 10:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not technically the same as The Sun, but along those lines. It was famously disreputable for decades. Even as it had occasional genuine news scoops. Has it the same useful pretty-reliable status as the Sun and Daily Mail do for facts of sports coverage? (Though never material about the sportspeople.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Because of who is doing this, and how they're proposing to do this. I would support a TBAN against them doing anything similar, in thr future.

The NotW is trash. It is remarkable that we even have such links used as references. There is a possibility of some in a self-referential context being valid, but that's a separate situation.

But, all that said, I do not want (in the strongest possible terms) Guy to do another of these crusade runs. Particularly one expressed as ""remove the couple of hundred links we have", i.e. to remove all of them, and with no attempt at per-use review. We've seen this before, and these runs have not been a good thing. I raised the Daily Mail run just a week ago Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Daily_Mail_bulk_removals_(again). Despite the fact we have RfCs in place that we will not remove the DM automatically like this. We've also had the castles run, where Guy used WP:FAIT to remove a source he had no understanding of, then it was opposed on the grounds that the author of the site was being overly modest and in fact it ought to be regarded as WP:RS, because of the author's standing in that field. But by then, the damage was done.

Guy should not be making bulk runs like this. They are badly done (they leave stranded citations, and they remove RS sources to other sites, amongst other problems). They are also blanket runs, removing everything, with no attempt made at any per-use editorial judgement. For those two reasons, this is a bad idea.

It's also disappointing that Guy has taken the proposition "The NotW is not a fit source" and established a track record for his problem removals so bad that it's now a questionable idea that he should be doing something, when that's so evidently an overall good idea. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WTF? A topic ban for unsuspecting the NOW (a news paper closed down for wrong doing) is not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe try reading the paragraph above? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then I suggest you take it to ANI and not here.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur that if you're claiming that this is intrinsically wrong, you need ANI or similar - if you think you have a case, you need to make it. You're not even discussing the paper, just ranting about another editor you don't like - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I will add you oppose based on arguments, not who makes them, that validates the oppose.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's intrinsically wrong - and if I did, this would be the place to discuss that.

My point is that Guy has used this crusade tactic before, and has done so badly and with damaging effects afterwards. He has zero interest in cleaning up any such mess, it's just his edits, therefore they're self-justifying on that basis alone.

Should we make some effort to clean up and remove NotW sources? Probably.

Is Guy the person to do so? Absolutely not. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you think Guy should be topic banned from removal of sources, the correct venue to bring that up is WP:ANI. Such a discussion should not happen here. Gather some diffs and build your evidence at WP:ANI and the discussion can happen there. --Jayron32 17:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you're explicitly not discussing the quality of the source, you're making an extended personal attack on another editor. If you think you have a case to make - that keeping known-untrustable sources is good actually, and Guy should be sanctioned for removing the known-untrustable sources - you need to bother making it convincingly. So far you're WP:1AM - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is why I see Guy as not being a suitable editor to do this type of bulk removal: Trump–Ukraine scandal just this evening:

• 1RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): Not good sources, especially Fox News"
• 2RR: "Reverted good faith edits by WoodElf (talk): This is rouced to Fox News. At the very least that needs consensus on Talk. See WP:BRD."
• (improving sourcing)
• " it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy, and in any case it's better to discuss sourcing - especially crappy sources like Fox - on Talk, as I have done."

Also WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WoodElf and RS

This is a highly contentious current politics article. Deservedly it's subject to a 1RR restriction. A restriction which Guy clearly has no intention of following.

Secondly, he's acting here with a possibly laudable intention, although unsupported by WP policy and against WP:RS/P. However his actions are careless and are actually doing the opposite of it. Rather than "removing a Fox source added by WoodElf", WoodElf hadn't added this, Guy hadn't removed it, and what Guy's actually done is to remove two RS (BBC & Reuters). The Fox source is simply beng moved from place to place, by both of them.

Finally, when challenged and eventually accepting that his edits have been doing the opposite of what he both claimed and presumably thought, his response is "it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy," and a refusal to revert. Yet again: he does the wrong thing, multiple other editors challenge this, and his only reponse is a refusal to fix what he has created.

Any other editor (or a non-admin) would be looking at blocks for this attitude - just the 2RR would be enough. Look at the treatment of WoodElf at ANI, with no question of Guy's actions.

And under all of it, we have no sanction or deprecation against Fox News. Maybe we ought to (I'd support it, especially on US politics), but until such time as we do, there's no basis to act as if we do.

Every time I see one of these bulk blanking runs, we get the same or similar results. Being in such a hurry to demonstrate how 'right' they are over everyone else, that they're making errors all over, but then never either accepting this, or fixing it afterwards. That's why, even for good reasons like cleaning up NotW, Guy should not be the person doing this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support deprecating the source and removing any inappropriate uses of it. So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness (there would be places where its use would be necessary; for example when used to cite a direct quote, etc.) however, wherever it is being used as an inline cite for anything said in Wikipedia's voice should be removed with extreme prejudice. --Jayron32 14:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What does "deprecate" mean? It's a word I use a lot. But what does it mean in the WP content context? We seem to have never agreed this, and it's significant.

When "deprecate" is used in the context of the definition of formal standards, then it almost always means "We don't like this, we don't want to create any more of it, but we recognise that there's no way to make its existence go away immediately." So it begins by not creating any more instances of it. But it doesn't begin with a steamroller to remove all existing instances, and to leave gaps behind instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Deprecate means to express disapproval of and to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of/to seek to avert. I hope that helps. Also, sometimes a citation needed tag is better than using a bad source. The use of a bad source would imply that no one needs to find something. A CN tag alerts readers to research for a source. With sources of the lowest possible quality (that is, sources known to actively make things up rather than just be of unknown reliability), it is frequently better to simply remove them. As I noted, however, I have not advocated for 'remove all existing instances". I have listed places where it would be useful to retain the source in question, however we should simply not use the source to speak in Wikipedia's voice because it really is that bad. Other uses, where we make it clear we are directly quoting and attributing it to the source, may be useful. I will point out that when I said "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness" what I had actually meant was "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness". I hope that also clarifies it, since you seem to have misunderstood me there. --Jayron32 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• So you're using it with the meaning of "express disapproval of"? I can support that. But that's not the same as bulk, unchecked removal of them throughout.

Also there is a difference between avert and revert: I have no problem averting these, i.e. to avoid the creation of any more. But again, that's not the same thing as a bulk removal of them.

Rather than removal and {{citation needed}}, we also have a tag {{better source needed}}. It's intended for precisely this situation, nor does it imply the prior removal of the existing source. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, we're going to have to continue to disagree there. I agree that in many cases, the "better source needed" tag is appropriate; however not in all cases, and this particular source presents one where removing it is a better option. That isn't always true, or even usually true, but it is sometimes true, and this is one of those times, when I would rather have no source than this one. Secondly, and I'm going to repeat this a third time because you have missed it the other two times, I have not said that we should do a "bulk removal". I have said, and I quote again, "So long as each removal is assessed for its appropriateness." I would be rather opposed to any sort of blind removal of sources just on the name; however where the source is being used to cite text in Wikipedia's own voice rather than to cite a direct quote with in-text attribution (for example, in an article where its unreliability is being directly addressed, and where direct quotes are needed to establish its wrongness), then we should of course not remove those citations. I could also probably, if given enough time, come up with other times we wouldn't remove it. So no, we should not remove them in a "bulk" manner, but we should still use the ones that are being used inappropriately, which would be anywhere the source is being used as an inline cite for text in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 20:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, I remove deprecated unreliable sources when they are redundant to other, more reliable ones. Otherwise I tag the cite as needing a better source.

I remove predatory open access journals wherever I find them.

David Gerard also does some of this, but very few of us do, so without this effort, sources we all agree are worthless remain in Wikipedia untouched. Guy (help!) 09:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I've been systematically removing a lot of deprecated sources lately, on the basis that deprecated sources have been deprecated because we literally cannot trust them not to be lying nonsense, and they are actually worse than having nothing. News of the World is definitely that quality of source, by the way - there is no reasonable justification for using it as a source for anything, except maybe sporting facts, and then only in desperation. If Andy is opposed to this, he needs to make his case that keeping known-untrustworthy sources is good actually, and get the community to concur. "Deprecated" means "can't be trusted for anything." They absolutely should be removed, as should substantial claims cited only to them - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, I am not removing and leaving {{cn}}, I am tagging as needing a better source unless the source is redundant (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) in which case I am removing it altogether and leaving the other sources. So basically you're telling me I should be doing exactly what I am doing, but at the same time saying I should be topic banned for doing it. Guy (help!) 09:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• So your announcement at the top here, I propose to tag and then remove the couple of hundred links was false?

The trouble is that I don't believe your new claim. I've never seen you doing that before. I've not seen you use {{better source needed}}, but I've seen you remove citations altogether a lot, even when that blanket removal was being challenged here. As to (i.e. one of two or more sources for the same text) I've also seen you remove all of the citations in such a group, even when some were RS. And of course, when you create technical errors like that, even if you grudgingly admit them later, then you're never the one doing the cleanup work afterwards.

As already stated (and mis-read by nearly everyone in this thread) I'm not looking to preserve use of the NotW. But, given your demonstrated track record on similar actions, I don't trust your competence to do so. You seem confused as to whether you're immediately removing them or not. You keep using "deprecated", yet there is no definition of this term available, in the way in which you or WP are using it, so just what does that mean? (see the multiple definitions given above). You have taken the WP:DAILYMAIL RfC which did not support bulk removal and then cited them to justify exactly such a bulk removal. Yes, I see your actions as unsupported and inappropriate, and, more surprisingly, they even fail WP:COMPETENCE because your collateral damage keeps affecting non-targets as well. But you're an admin, so you're immune at ANI and there's no point wasting my time there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be an admission that you literally don't have a case - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: deprecate, remove, scour. NotW has always been a worse-than-useless source that is absolutely unsuitable for Wikipedia. I might make an exception for sporting facts if there's no other source - as with the Sun and Daily Mail - but that's about it - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• So are there further substantive non-derailing opinions on News Of The World? - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes and if it continues it should be take to ANI as disruption.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you try your "Anyone who disagrees with me is being disruptive" scare tactic any further, guess where you're going? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you considered that this discussion perfectly fits the description at WP:1AM? Please cut it with the personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate (personally I'd be closer to "kill with fire" but that's a disruptive opinion) I have removed all remaining citations to the News of the World on BLPs, so there are now none left. I still have plans to fix the 123 remaining BLPs that are citing The Sun. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to deprecating the source. Nor with how Guy has indicated they plan to handle it like adding a 'better source needed' tag. I would oppose replacing the source with a 'citation needed' tag as some have suggested for Daily Mail and I think here. As has been indicated, this can actually make things worse, as the Daily Mail may have details (often at least a time frame) which can make finding other sources easier. It would be better to simply remove the info as uncited which is technically justified for any uncited content. That said, it's IMO an open question about whether info sourced to a deprecated source should be treated exactly the same as uncited content. And in addition, although removing uncited content is justified, mass removing uncited content can be disruptive in some cases. (Although it's complicated. If someone comes a cross a BLP largely uncited, it will be difficult to find fault with an editor who pares it down to a bare minimum.) If editors are concerned that the 'better source needed' tag doesn't adequately convey the problem, we should consider some new tag to do so rather than causing problems for other editors by removing the info which may be needed to find another source. (I mean this isn't quite as bad as those who think it's okay to remove a dead bare URL, but still....) In addition, we can also consider delinking the source (making it so it's only text) if people feel that is necessary to help protect readers. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thinking about it more, technically we could probably also do something so the details are hidden to the reader but are still there. Ultimately there are surely many solutions if editors are concerned about the possible harm from readers reading the deprecated source which don't require us removing the source and replacing it with a citation needed tag potentially causing problems for anyone wanting to find a source. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's arguably a source whose claims can literally not be trusted, and such claims should be removed - particularly in BLPs. Though we'd need a proper RFC, which this isn't - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, my concern here was with the suggestions that instead of removing the content, we should remove the source and replace it with a fact tag. I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the content, although as I implied and elabourated in more detail below, the problem with removing content is while it's technical justified for any specific content, outside of BLPs, mass removing content across a whole host of articles simply because it's unsourced tends to be seen as disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement to have information in an article (and indeed a policy that explicitly says we should not be a random collection if information). It is down to those who want to retain information to find better sources, it is not down to us to keep poorly sourced (or unsourced) information.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Mostly agreed although I'm not sure if there's any likelihood of anyone disagreeing anyway. But the problem is, this doesn't change the fact that mass removing uncited info tends to be seen as disruptive, and will often lead to a block. And in this case, it's questionable if the info should be treated exactly the same as uncited. In other words, while removing any single instance of info cited to NoTW will probably be okay, removing it in one thousands instances may be a problem. BLP is one area you will probably be fine, but in other areas, I'd urge caution. (Don't believe me, go to Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Visit every article and remove any info with a citation needed tag. Do the same for the next page. See how long you last before you're blocked. For that matter, you'll probably find in many of those articles it's not the the tag part which appears uncited but a lot of it. If you want to really test the waters, try removing all the content that appears uncited.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: News of the World

Should News of the World be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail (RSP entry), with an edit filter put in place to warn editors attempting to use News of the World as a source? — Newslinger talk 00:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (News of the World)

• Yes, but "deprecation" should mean what the word means, and what WP:DEPS says it means. It doesn't begin with, "tag and then remove the couple of hundred links we have". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate, at least from 2000 onwards. Was on the fence since although I find any UK tabloid dodgy, so far we have not come to an agreement that they should all be deprecated. And I wasn't particularly aware of details showing that this was one particularly known for just making up stuff etc like the Daily Mail. So was waiting to see what others provided. But upon further consideration, I feel we cannot trust any source with as terrible ethics as they had with the hacking and use of corrupt police. Technically their terrible ethics seemed to be in trying to uncover info, but if you're willing engage in such practices, who knows what on earth else you're doing? (The 'kidnap plot' is possibly one example of this.) I'd note that my support should explicitly not be interpreted as supporting replacing all NotW links with 'citation needed' tags. And any mass removal of content should abide by the same norms for any mass removal of content. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate, if we must. I honestly didn't think we needed to bring this particular shrubbery as we're talking about a couple of hundred articles and the paper is defunct so no new ones are likely to be added. But since we're here: Mazher Mahmood was convicted and jailed; NoW was front and centre in the News International phone hacking scandal; their bribes to police were notorious, leading to at least one suicide; their anti-paedophile witch hunt led to a paediatrician and some rando who happened to have a neck brace being harassed. The Jam even wrote a satirical song about how bad they were. NoW was unreliable for the entire time it was online, IMO, and probably always. It was always a scandal sheet. Guy (help!) 09:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate Its a damn rag that cannot be trusted, and yes I think it means removes links to it, if its important then someone else would have mentioned it, we are not a catalog if random information. It is at least as unreliable as the Daily Myth, and unlike the DM had to be closed down due to its shoddy journalistic practices. They made stuff up [[61]], lied to Police [62]], and continued to lie about what they had been up to [[63]]. Nothing they ever said can be trusted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate and purge - it's as deeply fundamentally untrustworthy as The Sun, which is also deprecated, and for the same reasons. This is even given NotW's occasional genuine journalistic wins. NotW links should be presumed literally worse than useless for reliable encyclopedic citation - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Depracate Red tops. Horrible things. Fit only for the nail on the outhouse door. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 10:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate as a news source, don't deprecate as a source for quoted commentary. Given its dominance of the UK market—at one point it was the biggest-selling English-language newspaper in the entire world—they were disproportionately influential, and I'd consider it completely legitimate to (e.g.) quote from a NotW film review in the 'reception' section of the article on the film. ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate as noted above. Individual cases of its use can be discussed individually, but we should discourage its general use and remove it where it does not have specific consensus. Presumption that the source is illegitimate unless consensus establishes otherwise for a specific use. --Jayron32 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The selective banning of various media makes Wikipedia look partisan. Existing poolicies such as REDFLAG already prevent the misuse of stories published in NOW and all other publiations. TFD (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The NOTW wasn't "media" in the usual sense of the term, though, it was a mix of fabrications, pornography, and intentionally misleading commentary, laced with just enough genuine news to allow it to continue calling itself a 'newspaper'. (Although it's no longer with us, you can still get a taste of it at its spiritual heir the Sunday Sport.) Except on those occasions where we explicitly want to tell our readers specifically what the NOTW said, there are no circumstances when it will ever be a reliable source since any genuine story will have also been reported elsewhere in genuinely reliable sources. We should be treating the NOTW in exactly the same way we currently treat Victorian penny dreadfuls or Soviet propaganda; completely legitimate to use as a primary source when the reaction to something they published is itself the article topic, but never as a legitimate secondary source. ‑ Iridescent 20:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire and blacklist it to prevent linking from Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• ↑. François Robere (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Deprecate. The . . . publication is deeply flawed as a source of reliable information. I'm also of the opinion that almost everything anything that it reported which is in fact true could easily be replaced with a more trustworthy source. Ifly6 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• OPPOSE - not a justified proposal nor a serious concern for this long-defunct paper. Seems just a recentism fad or popularity contest here, and not based on looking at WP usage or actual damage vs benefit to articles. The links may be about sensational crime or celebrity events, topics the latter coverage did. Or may be about historical coverage, decades back. Regardless, any such link must have been in place for 9+ years as acceptable ... don’t ‘fix’ what isn’t broken. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate - and nuke it from orbit; its the only way to be sure. We're an encyclopedia, not a tool for rumor-mongering. It's a damn shame we can't just blacklist it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Deprecate as a news source: I agree with what Iridescent says above. Historical film reviews may be significant. — Bilorv (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (News of the World)

• Historically, we have required an RfC for deprecation, since it authorizes the use of an edit filter (set to warn) across article space, and this needs community-wide consensus. Pinging previous commenters JzG, Slatersteven, David Gerard, Andy Dingley, Jayron32, Ritchie333, and Nil Einne as a courtesy. — Newslinger talk 00:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • no reason not to nail this one down procedurally - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Deprecate as a news source, don't deprecate as a source for quoted commentary."

I would agree with this statement. What does it mean for our wording here? Does "deprecate" (in our WP sourcing context) implicitly mean that second exception? We can't fully cover the Falklands, or the diet of Freddie Starr, without mentioning The Sun in some self-referential WP:PRIMARY cases. No doubt there's similar for the NotW. Should such exceptions be recognised implicitly and automatically within the statement "This source is now deprecated on WP", or do we need to state that explicitly for each case? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As someone who has accidentally used shit sources before, I am all for making our job as editors a little bit easier by keeping trash like this out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: PolitiFact

I noticed that the perennial sources list circumscribes PolitiFact's reliability (because the only RS noticeboard about PolitiFact asked about its reliability for a circumscribed set of issues). It's therefore worthwhile to ask for clarity's sake:

• Should PolitiFact be listed as a generally reliable source? Or something else? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (PolitiFact)

• Yes, generally reliable. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact of the 12-time Pulitzer Prize-winning Tampa Bay Times which is owned by the respected non-profit Poynter Institute is indeed a reliable source. Here's the last RSN discussion about PolitiFact: while it was not about 'general reliability', it did conclude with overwhelming agreement that PolitiFact was indeed reliable for fact-checking.[64] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  What sorts of things does PolitiFact publish aside from fact checking? --Jayron32 20:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I added clarification in the discussion section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable but that doesn't mean reliable in every case nor does that imply weight. Media Bias/Fact Check ranks the site low for bias and high for factual reporting [[65]]. However, there have also been at least a few recent articles suggesting the source has dropped the ball [[66]], [[67]]. Springee (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• MBFC is not a reliable source in the slightest. It has a ludicrous methodology, and is basically just one random guy's part-time work. The Fox News piece quibbles about how PolitiFact refused to label something as "false". The NR piece is an op-ed by someone who wants to hang women who have abortions complaining about how PF fact-checked one of his own statements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What evidence do you have that MBFC isn't reliable? I get that it's not listed as a WP:RS but I'm not using it in an article so that doesn't matter. Funny that you would attack MBFC given it supports your views in this matter. The other two items show that PolitiFact isn't always correct or without some controversy even though in general I would agree it's a reliable source. Springee (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Funny that you would attack MBFC given it supports your views in this matter." Some editors edit in a principled consistent manner. A shit source is a shit source regardless of whether it supports my claims or not. Every time someone cites MBFC on the RS noticeboard, an angel dies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I'm sure many agree you edit in a consistent manner... and in a way that follows a set of principles. Springee (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, including for supplemental details that come up in the course of their fact-checking; but as mentioned above and below, the discussion that led to this should probably be over WP:DUE and not WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, as are other fact-checking sources. That limited RfC has no value for general application. PolitiFact is generally a RS, especially in their area of expertise, which is vetting claims that may or may not be false or misleading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. (edited to bold my view of the source - Q&A follows unedited) Where is this being challenged? It appears to be generally reliable but context matters. Guy (help!) 10:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Mark Levin, diffs in the discussion below. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72, OK. So the question is not reliability (it's clearly reliable) but one of due weight. Guy (help!) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Agreed the question there is not general reliability, but specific reliability (in the context of the proposed text); and of DUE and of IMPARTIAL to a lesser extent. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72, It's both: generally reliable and specifically reliable for these facts. I'd stick with UNDUE if I were you. Guy (help!) 23:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed the specific reliability in the context of the proposed text at the article Talk page. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ryk72, incorrectly, IMO. But that is for the talk page. Guy (help!) 08:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per Snooganssnoogans and others. Their fact checking is well researched and well respected by other reliable sources. I agree that the previous RfC was too narrowly focused. mediabiasfactcheck.com is not a reliable source; Fox News is a questionable source; and National Review is a partisan (mostly) opinion source.- MrX 🖋 11:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per MrX. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable Per clarifications made below. Now that I know what the source of the conflict was, I agree that the existing guidance is too restrictive. I have seen no evidence that PolitiFact publishes unreliable things, and lots of external evidence that the journalism world holds their work in the highest possible regard. I can think of no reason why its use should be deprecated, and we should not be afraid to use it to verify anything (within the normal limits of using sources appropriately and in the correct context). --Jayron32 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable; factchecks should be attributed. The outcome of factcheck should be attributed per RSOPINION. e.g. PolitiFact rated this claim as "mostly true" or similar. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Ryk72, Missed this comment, which IMO is spot on. Guy (help!) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for news, politics, and fact checks. Since the Poynter Institute operates both PolitiFact and the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), PolitiFact's IFCN accreditation is not an independent third-party evaluation. However, the assessments from 2017, 2018, and 2019 show PolitiFact making its own case that it is a generally reliable source. The assessments contain evidence of PolitiFact's strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, including its ethics policy, sourcing policy, funding disclosures, staff list, methodology, and list of error corrections. — Newslinger talk 01:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• What Ryk72 said. Generally reliable, but attribution required for the factual rating. feminist (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable-Politifact performs far more "fact-checks" on conservatives than liberals, and these are of dubious quality. It's an opinionated outlet masquerading as an impartial arbiter of truth. Display name 99 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, generally reliable., known for careful fact checking. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Faulty concept" Any source can be reliable or unreliable. "Generally" promotes the concept of over generalization. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Concerned by their refusal to correct a fact check they blew [68] Note that their data end in 2014 for fact-checking Trump's 2016 statement. They say that "2014 is the last full year for which data is available", which was true at the time, but there were plenty of city-level data for 2015, available at the time, showing that homicides were up.[69][70][71]. Politifact should have paid attention, but they didn't. And yes, the 2015 and 2016 data, when they became available, showed a rise in the worst violent crimes, especially homicide.[72][73] Most concerning of all, Politifact was called out on it at the time [74] but the article is still up on their site, uncorrected. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Your argument is veering dangerously close to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, you have decided to substitute “homicide” and “the worst violent crimes" for “crime” and in doing such you are incorrectly representing your sources. Your argument is not only WP:OR but is plainly factually inaccurate. The irony of you being an unreliable editor on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard is hopefully not lost on anyone. Please provide accurate summaries of sources in the future and avoid misleading/false summaries which push a particular political agenda. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  To quote WP:OR -- Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Is this page a Wikipedia article? Would the other responses to this very RfC run afoul of WP:OR if placed in a Wikipedia article? If so, why does mine merit an attack on WP:OR grounds, while others don't? The upshot is that I'm finding it difficult to WP:AGF here. Can User:Horse Eye Jack help me out in that regard? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Generally reliable In the rare case where they are obviously wrong, you would have a better source to use anyway. RockingGeo (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich 19:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Something else - Keep the circumscribed as is because basically thats what they do and the scope we’re evaluating for, and keep attribution in re their analysis opinions. RS depends on context, and the scope of their competence and any caveats (nobody is perfect) is what needs to be identified. For example, they seem not suitable for WP:MEDRS, their experience seems in U.S. national politics, with a slight left-lean POV. And that’s only for their signature rating articles, punditfact or sidepieces would be Case-by-case. I do see extensive criticism from politifactbias.com, and individual dings from mediabiasfactcheck, the federalist, newsbusters, Breitbart, xkcd (humor), etcetera. Seems largely critiques about left-leaning by ratings that are excessively or inconsistently negative towards the right. NPR has a transcript of the show Political Fact-checking Under Fire. Forbes has a piece on how Obama’s ‘Keep your health care’ promise rating occurred and shifted about is part of a “troubled state” for ‘fact-checking’ journalism. A plausible RS on U.S. political info, but it’s rating should not be given as itself worth mention in most cases, and should not be portrayed as ‘fact’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - same song, second verse: 🎼exercise caution and try to verify with original documents when possible.𝄇 If WP:RECENTISM is at play, then use in-text attribution. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable by personal experience using and reading source, often adding additional useful info. "PolitiFact ... been berra berra good... to me." X1\ (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable Politifact has some great articles, and they've earned some prestigious awards for their reporting. The details of their reporting can be used to support factual claims without attribution, but I think their truth ratings should be attributed, since the determination between true, mostly true, half true, etc is necessarily an opinion. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (PolitiFact)

What has changed about PolitiFact since the last discussion we had? Has there been a change of ownership or of who works there or of what they publish to lead you to believe that it is a different quality of source since the last time we went through this discussion? The last discussion was rather overwhelmingly that PolitiFact's individually fact-checking of politicians statements was scrupulously reliable, and that it's proprietary "percentage truth" calculations were broadly reliable and useful as a primary source with direct attribution to PolitiFact. That was fairly clear in the last discussion on both of those. So, unless you have a different use for the source than one of those two in mind (that is, do you find PolitiFact being used for something other than factchecking statements of politicians or to report on their own "truth scale" of percentages) OR you have some evidence that PolitiFact is not the same level of reliability that it was in 2016, I'm not sure what you expect to change... --Jayron32 20:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• The old RS/N discussion is specifically about PF's reliability "for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates?" and attribution for "reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate". In other words, PF is not "generally reliable". Editors have exploited these qualifiers and ambiguities to argue that PF is therefore not a RS in situations which do not revolve around political candidates[75][76]. I guess the ambiguity could also be exploited to argue that PF is unsuable for content which does not explicitly relate to fact-checking a specific statement... i.e. if PF provides background info on something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like the results here will be used to justify inclusion of material in the Mark Levin article [[77]]. Presumably if PolitiFact is deemed reliable then all objections can be swept aside. Springee (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how each objection to the material on the Levin article, with the exception of one about WP:RS, centers around WP:UNDUE, that's not the case. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then there was no reason to open this RfC vs just referencing the old one. Springee (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that ambiguities in the last RS/N discussion are being exploited to argue that it's not a RS, then there is clearly a need to make sure that the perennial sources list clearly describes PolitiFact as "generally reliable". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you check the list before asking the question? It's listed here already [[78]] as "Generally Reliable". Springee (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The text in 'summary' adds qualifiers to its reliability. The sole purpose of this RfC is to get rid off those qualifiers to ensure that bad editors don't exploit the ambiguities and waste everyone's time trying to dispute that PolitiFact is a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why don't you be up front with your motivations/intentions and tell us what you think is wrong and link to the previous discussions and say why they were wrong. While you are at it, please ping those editors who objected last time so their concerns aren't lost. It looks like you are trying to do a run around based on a content dispute. Springee (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth are you on about? "tell us what you think is wrong" - PolitiFact should be described as generally reliable without any unnecessary constraining qualifiers as to situations when it's reliable. What exactly about this confuses you? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• That discussion seems like a mess. I agree that the discussion should focus on WP:DUE (which is normal when something is mentioned in only one high-quality source, and could reasonably go either way presuming we're just discussing a comparable one-line mention in the article), but three of the comments seem to object to Snooganssnoogans in particular, with two of them literally not offering any reason for their position beyond that. In any case UberVegan's interpretation of how we can use Politifact (which is the only thing that really relates to WP:RS) seems too narrow, but I'm not sure we need a separate RFC for that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This is a misuse of the RfC process. Questions about reliability should mention the specific source and the text it is supposed to support. The first page to raise the issue is at RSN and RfCs should only be used if no result is found. Opinions expressed in the most reliable sources for example cannot be used as facts in articles. DUE is another important issue. Facts that only appear in Politico, or similar sources, lack weight for inclusion in most articles. TFD (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, yes and no. I think it's fair to ask the abstract question "is X a reliable source?", but in this case it's the wrong question because while the answer is "yes", it's the only reliable source to cover this matter, as far as I can see, so we have a situation where the significance of a fact for inclusion is being asserted on the basis of the existence of a fact-check. That is not really a question of reliability but of due weight. Guy (help!) 18:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• What are the current restrictions? So what are the current restrictions on the use of PolitiFact? If this RfC is going to supersede the results of the last one (which appears to have large number of respondents), what were the previous concerns and have the previous involved editors been notified? Springee (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  The problem, apparently, is not that there are restrictions, it's that the people are arguing that merely because it doesn't say that there aren't restrictions, there must be restrictions. At least, that's how I read the above discussion. They have latched on to some imprecise wording in a prior discussion to essentially restrict the use of the source, when the source is clearly scrupulously reliable. At least, that is my understanding based on the several explanations above. --Jayron32 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Jayron32, Not far wrong, I reckon. Unfortunately the current right-wing goal of getting people to equate mainstream with partisan left wing is working at a subconscious level: entirely impartial reporting that shows right wing figures to be liars, crooks or bigots, is seen as biased. The hyper-partisan left has also played a part, seeking to portray the mainstream as part of the establishment and therefore untrustworthy, but, to be blunt, they don't have the billions of dollars it takes to buy entire broadcasting networks and feed that into every home. Guy (help!) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  To be fair, it looks like it was only one person. I'm not convinced it was worth this RfC just because one editor made a misguided suggestion, but whatever we're here now. Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• What is the question? ? ? If this is adjusting RS Scope then needs to state what scope or the restrictions are, if this is a question of checking the prior results it is unnecessary, and this is not the appropriate thing for a DUE question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail (sigh, yes, again)

I'm reviewing Daily Mail cites. We still have many thousands of these. Quite a few are in sports articles - the Mail's sports coverage is much less controversial than its news articles: the main issue with any link to the Mail's sports articles is the repugnant "sidebar of shame". I don't see much reason they would be a problem for simple stuff like signing fees and dates, though I would not want to use the Mail as a source about players' off-the-field activities, or anything with political or racial overtones. Should we ignore use of the Mail for simple statements of fact about sporting matters? Or should I continue to tag even these as needing a better source? Guy (help!) 12:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

For long time I have had these links on my user page : BLPs that cite The Sun Daily Star Daily Mail. The latter is gradually going down; we've currently got about 900 BLPs that cite the Mail and that's about half of what we used to have. The crucial action I take is to ensure the article is properly fixed by removing the Mail or Sun citation - that means either replacing it with a more authoritative source, or removing the claim entirely. For something like "On 21 March, Joe Blow's wife gave birth to their daughter Francesca<ref>[cite to Mail]</ref>", that can just just be removed per WP:BLPSOURCES. For something like a sports result citing The Sun, that needs to be checked against other sources and replaced carefully, which takes time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• The RFC that depreciated the DM explicitly exempted sports coverage from the depreciation. Also, please remember that depreciation is not an outright “ban” on using a source. There will be (rare) instances when the source may be appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is there an RfC which deprecates the DM? Does it use that word? Does it define it? We have an ongoing problem where the term is being bandied about, but no-one agrees on what it means, and what the appropriate response is. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Andy Dingley, more than one, as you know perfectly well. WP:DAILYMAIL for example. Guy (help!) 13:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• My ability to find the word "deprecate" in those RfCs, or more importantly a WP-standard definition for what we mean by that has been no more successful than your spelling of the link to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Previously, you were given three very closely related definitions of deprecate, from the two most respected dictionaries (Oxford and Merriam Webster) in the English world. The best definition here is the one from Merriam Webster that states " to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of". I don't know what else to do to educate you on the meaning of the word. It's plain English, as is the definition. It isn't a technical term, and it does not have a specialized meaning here. Regarding your other question, see WP:RSP, which lists 37 discussions around the Daily Mail, the most relevant one for us is the 2017 discussion here which reached the following conclusion, and I quote "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference." You'll note that the conclusion of that RFC does not use the word "deprecate" (though the words it does use contain a near perfect functional definition of deprecate as it is defined in the previously cited dictionary definitions) I hope that helps. --Jayron32 13:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Re: "I hope that helps", Has it ever helped before? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know as I've never thought along those lines. I don't really pay attention to things like that. --Jayron32 19:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (Multiple EC) It was mentioned a few times at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 255#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail. It doesn't look like it was mentioned in the earlier RfC WP:DAILYMAIL as I believe the term only came to be associated with it after the RfC. The informational page Wikipedia:Deprecated sources was created while the 2nd RfC was ongoing. But prior to that a number of unrelated RfCs referred to the Daily Mail as being deprecated e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#RfC: Breitbart. I don't think there's any real dispute that the Daily Mail has been deprecated even if we don't have entire consensus on precisely what that means. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• That's the problem. Without an agreed definition, how do we go about "deprecating" it?

The term is well-known and well-understood, albeit within a very narrow field. But it's always used for its specific and subtle implication (as has been supported by the definitions given), which also fits with our situation here: "Stop doing any more of that, but we aren't able to simply remove all those which already exist". Specifically, blanket removal would generate first a rash of {{cn}}s, then likely a rash of removals. Unless we know that we're actually questioning the truth of something, not merely its sourcing, then that's far from being a simple improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Truth cannot be separated from verifiability at Wikipedia. Something is either verifiable (that is, shown to be true) or not verifiable, and things which are not verifiable should be removed (pursuant to expediencies such as giving people a limited amount of time to find new sources, etc). Truth, while it may exist outside of are ability to verify it, is not our standard here. The standard is verifiability, that is can you show it to be true. There is no functional difference between "don't know if it is true or not" and "not true". Something is either verifiable (able to be shown to be true) or not verifiable (not able to be shown to be true). --Jayron32 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should remove sports cites with less urgency, but there's no conceivable need for the sports cite. Surely, the DM is not the only record in the world for anything about a major sporting event? Just swap it out for something good. --Jayron32 13:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why would "sports" be any less problematic for the DM?

Now I don't like the DM, but this is mainly because of editorial bias, rather than inaccuracy. For sport I don't see a particular problem. But yet there has been a position advocated (and you've been the strongest advocate of it) that all DM must go. So why this relaxation here?

Also, wouldn't the factual aspect of sport (i.e. match results etc) be one of the easiest things for which to replace the DM? Isn't there still a specialist sporting press which is regarded as reliable? So from your past comments, surely each of these becomes a new tag type for "Replace DM with Sporting Life cite"? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sports would be less problematic because they have no record of fabrication or extreme bias in sports reporting, unlike their approach to other areas. Per the RfC. Which you participated in. Guy (help!) 13:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So what is "sports"? If we mean "David Beckham scored two of the winning goals", then we're both on fairly safe ground, and also easily able to upgrade that source to a dedicated sporting source. But is, "Gorgeous pouting David Beckham today launched another fashion line, seen here modelled by his wife and her peachy derrière" also "sports"? Where do we draw the line (as one of the most problematic non-brexit lines in contemporary UK newspapers) between sports and sports people? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, exactly as I stated: runners and riders, result, the like, fine, prurient content, not so much. Guy (help!) 13:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's that hard to understand. While I didn't read either of the major RfCs that well, I assume this exception came about because it's far harder to mess up sports results. I mean sure you could say England won by 28-7 against Scotland scoring 4 converted tries to Scotland's 1, when in reality it was 9-3 to Scotland and no one scored any tries, but that's difficult and just weird so they don't generally do that. More likely would be careless fact checking like saying Jonny May scored the try when it was actually Kyle Sinckler, but I assume even that isn't particularly likely. Frankly if you want to ask about grey areas, it would be better to look at other stuff. For example, would it be acceptable to cite the Daily Mail story talking about how "Ref DESTROYS England's dream with TERRIBLE ERROR"? Is this source good enough to mention that there was controversy over some decision by a referee? What about if the story claims the ref's non selection for some future game is an indication the IRB is unhappy about the decision? Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's a UK paper. Factual accuracy is generally good (they want to avoid being sued), editorial bias is terrible (because they're expert at misrepresentation without provable error). So things like "European ref steals victory from plucky Engerlund and gives it to Remoaner Scotland" are much more of a problem, and I don't see "sports" (war without tears) as being any less of a problem there.

If it's just scores, then that's also the aspect most easily replaced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I am finding a lot of trivia about sportsists cited to Daily Mail stories with lurid headlines invoking well-known Dail Mail tropes like "beach ready" or "flaunting" or whatever. That is trash and I am replacing them when I can with sources that address the newsworthy matter rather than turning to the audience with a barely-suppressed "PHWOOOOAR!", a failing regrettably common to many tabloids. Guy (help!) 15:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing to remember - HEADLINES are never considered reliable sources (no matter which outlet we are talking about)... it’s the reporting after the headline that we need to examine when we judge reliability. I’m not arguing that the DM has a good reputation for accurate reporting, just that we need to ignore the fact that they use click-baity sensational headlines when making a determination of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Blueboar, sure. The content is normally every bit as bad. Often a thinly veiled excuse for paparazzi photos of WAGs. Guy (help!) 17:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I personally you think you should spend less time whacking Andy around the head, and more time cleaning up serious BLP violations like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, check the history, Andy started the argy-bargy, not me. That is, after all, what he does. And if I had spotted that content I would have nuked it for certain sure. Not as a BLP violation (it probably isn't, it appears to be true) but because it's hopeless. I will review your maintenance pages, though - they look useful. I'm sure you've mentioned them before and I didn't bookmark them, my bad. Guy (help!) 13:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"not me" Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, funny, I don't see any commentary about you in that diff. Guy (help!) 14:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Guy, are you so insecure that you can't take any comment on the issue here without seeing it as "argy bargy" and some sort of personal abuse? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the pair of you need to either report each other at ANI or shut up about each other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't spend a lot of time talking about it or even thinking about it, but I also have problems with Andy Dingley's behavior. The best answer I have found it that when I see his signature I skip to the next comment without reading whatever he wrote. Responding just encourages him to post more of the same.

         Responding just 
         encourages him! 
                \ 
                 >') 
                 ( \ 
                  ^^` 

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• A related question which I just came across recently: What about The Mail on Sunday? They were founded by the same person and have the same owner, but have an entirely separate editorial staff. --Aquillion (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  This noticeboard has been mostly silent about The Mail on Sunday. It's not currently affected by the deprecation of the Daily Mail. — Newslinger talk 03:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Aquillion, MoS had a different editor and the two were at loggerheads for some time, based in no small part on Geordie Greig's contempt for Dacre's transparent attempts to influence the news to fit his ideology - at least if you can believe Private Eye, which in this case you probably can. That said, much of the most biting criticism has focused on Mail Online, which remains appalling. The comments, the "sidebar of shame", the endless churnalism. I would never link to the Mail's website for anything. Guy (help!) 15:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Opinions in the Daily Mail

In the moratorium RfC, I was made aware that the Daily Mail RfCs (2017 and 2019) did not address opinions published in the Daily Mail. Is the Daily Mail a usable source of opinions that are not used under WP:ABOUTSELF? — Newslinger talk 12:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nosish I think they are reliable if they said it, I am not sure they are reliable for quotes from anyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• It depends ... are we talking about the DM quoting someone while reporting on someone’s opinion... or are we talking about someone writing an op-ed piece that is printed in the DM? I would say the DM is not reliable in the first situation... and in the second situation a lot depends on who the author of the op-ed is (and that is more of an UNDUE question than a reliability question). Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Opinions? Isn't that the aspect for which the DM is least trustworthy?

Yet again, a UK tabloid is not a US tabloid. The DM doesn't run "Elvis on the Moon" stories. But it does try to rig elections. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is a generic problem affecting a lot of sources. "According to X, Y - source, X saying Y". If it's not covered by other sources then it's WP:UNDUE. If it is covered by other sources then the primary source may or may not be appropriate, depending on local consensus relating to the actual content (e.g. we might well include a report on the BBC about egregious racism published by The Daily Blah, but choose not to link to the egregious racism itself). The main self-sourcing use of the Mail I'm seeing right now is Mail contributors' opinions cited to the Mail, particularly Mail bloggers. That fails UNDUE if not covered elsewhere. Mail blogs are not RS anyway, for the same reason as we already decided not to use Forbes contributor blogs as sources. Guy (help!) 13:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• If it's an Op-Ed piece by an expert or other authority on the subject then I don't see the problem (as long as it's attributed). I'd be careful about stories with "Celebrity X said Y" as the DM has been known to make those up as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I still think the general guidance of "If it can be confirmed in another source, use that source. If it only exists in the DM, pretend it doesn't exist" is probably best across the board. In the very limited case of directly quoting a person describing themselves in their own writing published in the Daily Mail, there may be some allowance to be made, but really, we'd need to see the exact Wikipedia text in the context of the article in question in order to decide if an exception is worthwhile. We should default to exclude in general. --Jayron32 13:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Jayron32, Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Even when self-courcing is unambiguously appropriate, we should still not include comments that have zero coverage other than by the individuals themselves. Guy (help!) 14:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Only opinions of paid DM writers published by the DM should be consider usable, not opinions of others published by DM. One of the RFC pointed to a case where the DM was caught changing the statement of a third-party, so we cannot trust that DM is simply reprinting words quoted to them. Opinions of its paid writers seem to be fine, but then if they should be used falls into UNDUE territory (as with Brietbart, etc.) --Masem (t) 14:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Basically not. If it's only in the DM, there's probably no reason to run it. There may be exceptions. But basically, I think there's not much to gain from looking for reasons to use sources we already know can't be trusted - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Opinions, well that can be broad. I don't read the Daily Mail, but I remember some complaint at the time of the first RfC that we were throwing out "important" arts critics (I presume of theater, art and other "culture", and I hope not gossip culture). I was not sure that we were even throwing out any such, at the time, but can we first find out, Does the Daily Mail have such "important", "well regarded", or etc. professional critics of cultural arts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it does. But who are they well regarded by? Even Alex Jones has his fans. The Mail has names like A. N. Wilson, Bel Mooney and Craig Brown, for whom it's hard to say they aren't "big names". But then they also have the Piers Morgans, Sarah Vines, Liz Jones and Richard Littlejohns. Now we're into subjective issues of not trusting their standpoint, rather than saying they're unimportant. Can WP make such judgements neutrally? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Your response was not very enlightening, the links you provided do not seem to link to people known for arts criticism (at least in thier Wikipedia articles), so your answer to my actual question appears to be, NO. And the ones you did not link, who knows (but really now, Piers Morgan? Arts critic?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• You said cultural arts, rather than arts critic. Now Wilson is more literary than fine arts, but he'd surely qualify. Bel Mooney similarly: not the most artistic commentator, but you can't write her off as lowbrow. If you include theatre critics, these are the people you'd expect. Sarah Vine was arts editor at The Times, even if these days she's seen as the more politically interesting Mrs Gove. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I again refer to their Wikipedia articles and I can't see what you are talking about, so let's approach it this way, (Where on Wikipedia is the arts criticism at the Daily Mail written by Sarah Vine, Bel Mooney, or A.N. Wilson cited in Wikipedia?), and/or (What RS would you cite for the fact that any of these are known for their cultural arts criticism?). If it will help, see for example Chris Jones (drama critic). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, anyone who reads Private Eye does not take A. N Wislon too seriously. Guy (help!) 08:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I read Private Eye, I certainly don't. But I do recognise that others do. Can I, on that subjective basis, dismiss Wilson as not being a "serious" commentator? Similarly Vine et al. And where does that leave Brown, who writes for the Eye? We have to be very careful here to write in WP's objective voice, not that of a personal viewpoint. Much as might like to, I don't think we can write them off so easily. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. There are too many stories floating around about paid Daily Mail writers who, as a condition of employment, have to put up with material being published under their byline which has very little resemblance to what they had actually written. Yes, they gave permission for this sort of thing when they started cashing the paychecks, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept the fabrications as if the person credited actually wrote them. Nothing written in The Daily Mail should be trusted at all. Find another source that says the same thing and use that. If you can't find another source, don't use it at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am just going to leave this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • good Lord. At this point we may want to run a fact-checking sample over the sports scores too - David Gerard (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• As always, when using the Daily Mail, we should take care: per Jayron32, if statements can be confirmed through other sources, we should default to using those sources (of course); but our deprecation of the Mail should not go so far as to exclude the opinions of Mail writers, employed by that newspaper, and published within the Mail, as Masem so astutely notes. (Generally, though, I get the feeling that controversial opinions would naturally be covered by other sources, and we should use those in place of the Mail.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not quoted opinions, no, since they've been specifically caught manipulating those. I would generally avoid using even the published opinions of DM staff writers unless a particular piece has secondary coverage in a reliable source (in which case we'd use that instead) - while WP:RSOPINION does allow some otherwise-unreliable sources to be used for opinion, my feeling is that it's generally intended for opinion-pieces in otherwise reliable publications (ie. that's the example given.) We still trust that those publications will do basic fact-checking and will refuse to publish an opinion whose argument outright assumes something flagrantly untrue - the "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of editorial. We also trust that they verify the expertise and relevance of the author. None of that is stuff we can trust the Daily Mail for, so I would generally be reluctant to even use their opinion pieces outside of circumstances where it passes the threshold for WP:SPS. And in general the SPS comparison seems apt because - basically, the premise of WP:RSOPINION is that it applies to opinion-pieces in otherwise-reliable publications because publication there gives even an opinion a degree of reliability that it wouldn't have elsewhere. The Daily Mail doesn't grant that - how is publishing there any more authoritative or reliable than publishing in a blog? It's not totally unusable when WP:SPS or WP:ABOUTSELF applies, but I feel that cites to opinion-pieces in journals that are otherwise unreliable have to pass the higher WP:SPS standard (ie. established expert in a relevant field - obviously the DM itself can't be used to establish that expertise) and not the WP:RSOPINION standard. WP:RSOPINION is, mostly, for things like editorials in otherwise reliable publications. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Since the DM cannot be used to determine weight, then opinions published in it have no weight and therefore cannot be reported unless they are picked up in other publications that meet rs. TFD (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not exactly true. It is extremely rare to have any source discuss the relative weights of viewpoints in a topic of debate, and that evaluation falls onto WP editors to assess as per UNDUE. That said, either the case with DM is that they will share the opinion of one of the significant viewpoints offered in a debate , and because there are other such viewpoints to pull from, it likely isn't needed to pull DM's version; OR otherwise DM is pretty much isolated in its stance and at that point questions of FRINGE weight would come into play. In either case, it is nearly ever necessary to pull in a DM opinion for a topic, but there may be such a case as allowed per UNDUE. --Masem (t) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• No - douse it all in napalm per Guy Macon's link above. Daß Wölf 02:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• After considering the above, I come down generally with TFD's No, the publication is not RS, which renders it generally useless for RSOPINION (note the RS) - this makes sense as a matter of ordinary logic: the project has found the editorial process of the DM untrustworthy, so we can't trust that that editorial process publishes encyclopediclly useful opinion, either. If Masem's caveat means that it generally has no weight under DUE, OK, but it seems to still circle back largely to, not RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Opinions cited as such are generally usable. The "Ban the Daily Mail" viewpoint is primarily political. I, personally would ban every source for "celebrity gossip" known to man as being a far better "ban" than this "not really a ban" has turned out to be. Collect (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And do you know why the other Daily Myth, and the Snu and the Daily Excess have not been deprecated people arguing that if we do not depreciate the other Daily Myth we should undeprecate this daily Myth. It has not been those of us who wanted this Daily Myth deprecated who have fought for the other Scandal rags not to be.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I fear your aside has little or nothing to do with my post. Perhaps you can show me where you are on point with my comment? Collect (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I still think we need to distinguish between the opinions OF the Daily Mail (written by editorial staff), and opinions of published BY the Daily Mail (written by experts). For the second, the AUTHOR is more important to determining reliability than the venue of publication. If (for example) the DM was to publish an opinion piece written by John Bercow about Parliamentary procedure, it should be attributed to Bercow, but deemed reliable as expressing his opinion. Note, this is not the same as the DM reporting on something Bercow said. I am talking about Bercow himself writing something for publication in the DM. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is already covered by the deprecation. There is no inherent difference between the Daily Mail reporting on the fact that someone holds a particular opinion and the Daily Mail reporting on any other facts. This does not change if the opinion is attributed explicitly by quotation, or attributed implicitly by claiming that an article was written by the person in question. This is not one of the exceptions listed at WP:DEPS, or for that matter in the original Daily Mail RfC. Arguments to permit the Daily Mail to be used for this purpose would need to establish that it is unusually reliable among deprecated sources for reporting the opinions of others, something which I think has been adequately refuted above. Sunrise (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree when it comes to the Daily Mail reporting about someone’s opinion in an article... and even agree about a DM article quoting some one in an article. But an op-Ed piece actually written by a subject matter expert - someone who is not employed by the DM - is different. In that situation, the DM is simply the venue in which the author is stating his opinion. Blueboar (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel that the appropriate thing to do in that situation (when an expert is published in a venue that provides no reliability) is to apply the WP:SPS standard - being published in the Daily Mail provides no more reliability than publishing something in your blog, so it should be subject to the restrictions of WP:SPS (though it may add some WP:WEIGHT if you do pass WP:SPS.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure... restricted... limited... rare... put what ever terms you want on it. The point is that this would be a valid exception to the depreciation, and is a legitimate counter to the kneejerk “never ever ever use” argument. You always need to examine exactly WHAT is being cited before you say it isn’t appropriate. This is why we can’t leave reliability up to bots. There are always exceptions, even if they are rare. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Blueboar: In case I wasn't clear, the point I was trying to make in that case was that if we don't trust the DM (or any other deprecated source) to faithfully report on someone's opinion, we have no reason to trust them to faithfully report that an article was written by the subject-matter expert in the first place (which is just another form of reporting on someone's opinion anyways) - as opposed to simply making it up and putting that person's name on it. Or, perhaps more likely in this case, taking a genuine opinion article and then embellishing it to make it more sensational, which is the sort of thing we've already established that they do. I suppose it would be another matter if we had external confirmation where the person said "yes, this is an accurate representation of my views", but I would say that's just another variation of the "if it's true then it will be published elsewhere" issue. Sunrise (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the DM would fabricate an entire opinion piece (an essay length document) and ascribe it to someone who didn’t write it? No, Even the DM does not go that far. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, in the case of the DM specifically, I think it's more likely they would embellish it than fabricate the entire thing. But either way, the point remains the same. Sunrise (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Embellish their reporting on someone’s opinion, sure... but embellish something that the person actually wrote... no way. Is there ANY indication that they have ever done this? Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Not this exact thing (that I know of), although I wouldn't be surprised as I don't think their record sets a good precedent. Sunrise (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• No the DM frequently makes stuff up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• No The DM is a persistent liar, just search "Daily Mail clarifications". This was one of its latest fabrications, which could have had serious repercussions for the people that work for those companies. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Conditionally yes, was Strong Yes but changed per follow-up from JzG - They are the online version of the UK broadsheet The Daily Mail, owned by News Corporation. They have solid editorial review processes. In fact, I'd speedy close this as include on ground previous RfCs have been achieved by false consensus. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You may wish to review Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk)

David Gerard Is the online DailyMail.com not the same as Daily Mail, the broadsheet? I assumed it was similar, editorially, to The Times of London.--Doug Mehus T·C 21:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dmehus, It's not a broadsheet, it's a tabloid. Specifically, it's a tabloid known for lying, and for the "sidebar of shame". Guy (help!) 21:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Okay, maybe I haven't looked into all their coverage. I do know they do an excellent job with respect to covering UK branch closures with respect to their This is Money website. So, that's why I was not thinking they were your run-of-the-mill National Enquirer-esque tabloid. (Yes, I know, it's a bit odd that as a Canadian, I'd be interested in UK bank branch closures.) Doug Mehus T·C 21:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Why we should never use The Daily Mail as a source

Let us consider the following story, published in The Daily Mail in 2017:

Porn really is bad for you! Lonely Japanese man who amassed a SIX-TON pile of dirty magazines died when it collapsed on top of him... and his body wasn't found for six months\

Go ahead an read it. Pay attention to the details. I will wait.

Now imagine that you are a Wikipedia editor and you want to see whether you can use the above in any way.

"Ah! First I need to will see whether any other sources confirm the story" You might say. That's what many Wikipedian's advise; if you can find it in another source, use that other source. If it is only in The Daily Mail, assume that is never happened, they will tell you.

[79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]

Some of the above are pretty bad sources, but then again, do we really expect The New York Times to to feature somebody who died in a room full of porn?

If you happen to read Japanese, you might have noticed that The Daily Mail stole a story in the Japanese language from from The Nikkan Spa: 大量のエロ本に囲まれて孤独死…死後1か月以上経過した部屋のすさまじさ Here is a Google translate of that page. The Nikkan Spa published it on February 28, 2017. The Daily Mail story was published on March 3, 2017.

Yes, the man had a large porn collection, and yes, he died, but that's pretty much the only thing The Daily Mail got right.

His body wasn't found for six months? A lie. The real source says that his body wasn't found for over a month

He was crushed? A lie. He died of myocardial infarction, commonly known as a heart attack.

His name was Joji? A lie. The real source gives no name.

Found when the landlord entered the flat to find out why the rent had not been paid? A lie. The real source doesn't say who found the body.

Found dead in his flat by a cleaner? (wait a minute.. the same DM story says it was the landlord!) A lie. The real source doesn't say who found the body.

A bunch of sites have covered that fact that The Daily Mail lied about this specific story: [89][90][91][92] Again ,not the best sources, but most legitimate sources don't waste time documenting every time The daily Mail lies. Despite the many sites that talk about it being a lie, The Daily Mail has never published a retraction or correction.

Bottom line: Don't read anything in The Daily Mail. If you are foolish enough to read something in The Daily Mail, don't trust any other source that tells the same story unless it was published before The Daily Mail published it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but was it really necessary to make a new section for this when we have a discussion on the Daily Mail open above? --Aquillion (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was too long for that thread, and I didn't want to cut out any of the documentation. If you think it works better in the thread, feel free to move it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've moved this into a subsection of the other discussion, mainly to avoid adding another discussion entry to WP:RSP § Daily Mail. (The Daily Mail currently holds the record with 39 significant discussions, including 2 RfCs.) — Newslinger talk 08:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• No-one is questioning that the DM is frequently unreliable, to the point of fabrication.

The question is, what do we do about it? Is a blanket run to delete everything and leave gaps a good thing? Given that RfCs at WP:DAILYMAIL have already rejected that repeatedly, why are we even still saying that we should do so? Who wants to be one of those people whose response to losing an argument is to carry on with the same rejected assertions as if it never happened at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is, we are here to provide our readers with the most accurate and relevant information we can. We do not serve them by having dubious or irrelevant information just to "fill gaps" in articles.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Japanese porn story has become a millstone around the DM's neck, and it is mentioned every time WP:DAILYMAIL is brought up. However, it is no worse than "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" and umpteen other pieces of tabloid junk. I've said many times that the DM is deprecated as a source, but this is also true of the UK tabloids as a whole.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have started a few RSN threads on just that, but two wrongs do not make a right. Just because we cannot get the "Daily Diana princes of our hearts" or "The wonderful, throw away Snu" banned does not mean we should not ban the Daily Myth. In fact on more then one occasion such threads have been derailed by those clearly trying to get the daily Myth Unbanned (Yes I know it is not "bvanned" its shorthand) using just this argument.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

(OT: Hence the hazards of whataboutism, speaking of things that should be deprecated.) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think it is worth emphasizing and repeating that formal depreciation is an extreme step which we only take in situations where a source is both systematically unreliable in virtually all cases and is nonetheless being constantly cited by editors. Both these things have to be true for depreciation to make sense. We're not trying to produce an exhaustive list of every single terrible source here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

We clearly want to remove all DM from BLP ASAP, but the RFCs poses reasonable steps to do this beyond mass removal (otherwise we'd have a bot or AWG users already having run through to remove). There are times that DM does not lie about BLPs (moreso for basic biographical facts) but it some time and effort to find a better RS for those sources. We should be running through to tag all DM links on BLP pages as dubious sources to encourage replacement, but a mass wipe is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem, Right. We do what I am doing: review each one, remove the DM if it is redundant or if it is the single source for controversial content, and no other source covers it, and otherwise we tag as needing a better source. Then we review in a few months and if nobody has found a better source we replace where available and remove the content where there is no reliable source. Guy (help!) 13:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Only additional suggestion I would have is that after you've felt you reached the state that all DM links are marked for deprecation removal, to post in a central location "In two months, I will remove all DM links that have been tagged as such. Find replacements if you got them." Gives fair enough time for them to be fixed, and you have a notice you can point back to to justify the mass-removals then. --Masem (t) 14:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Alternately, we could not gratuitously hobble the process of removing references to the lying source that we literally cannot trust. There is no good reason to enact your suggestion - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, when replacing Daily Mail references - their supposedly okay sport coverage is often trivially replaceable with BBC coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I'm seeing new BLPs being created with dailymail.co.uk links - the filter that tags edits adding the DM doesn't seem to tag creation using the DM - what can be done about this? DM is unacceptable for BLPs David Gerard (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Concerns about papers from Annamalai University

200 papers with possible fabrication issues: https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2019/11/05/concerns-about-papers-from-annamalai-university/

Should we check those referenced in the articles? Nemo 20:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

​This is very concerning, and the linked discussion on the first paper contains dubious responses from the paper's authors. Is this problem restricted to Annamalai University's natural science papers, or does it also extend to its papers in other fields? — Newslinger talk 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the Hong Kong Free Press a reliable source?

The Hong Kong Free Press is used throughout several sensitive articles related to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, including the main article, and it is the most-used source for the sensitive Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests article.

From what I see, the website seems to be crowdfunded (at least through 2016) and was created (by a political activist?) partially in response to the acquisition of South China Morning Post by Alibaba.

I don't want this question to turn into a protracted political debate about the current situation in Hong Kong or China. I just want to hear the community's ideas on the Hong Kong Free Press as a source and possible consensus on whether (or in which contexts) the Hong Kong Free Press is a reliable source. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This article published by Harvard has a generally favorable opinion on them, and again here. Outlets as varied as the New York Times and Al Jazeera seem to grant them credence as well. I would say, based on my research, they look to be reliable. --Jayron32 12:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm marginal on this. I mean again, Wikipedia shouldn't be using newspapers as RSes where it's possible to avoid it. I'd suggest we must be very careful to avoid insertion of opinion disguised as factual reporting from this source. But beyond that, it's newsmedia. Not one of the best. Not one of the worst. It's a middling quality publication from a category I am averse to. Do with this what you may. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Also, I don't see how the NYT and Al Jazeera articles say anything about HKFP; the NYT article gives a quote from the founder of HKFP and the Al Jazeera article just says that the HKFP reports on the protests. By the way, those two Harvard Nieman links are the same article; did you mean to link another one? — MarkH21 (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard, Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests, Talk:Allegations of Hong Kong Police Force misconduct surrounding the 2019 Hong Kong protests. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In my view, it's reliable enough. It's manned by serious journalists and the team is hard out there covering the protests because it's an aspect of HK that the world is hungry for news on. True that it was formed to fill the gap expected from the buyout by Alibaba, but the SCMP still has a stronger and bigger team. At the time I write the SCMP is firmly "establishment" although it's not toeing "the party line" entirely. HKFP does have a liberal bias, but in that way it's not so different to the NYT or the Guardian. Probably not everything it publishes is worth taking into the article, so I'd suggest taking care to ensure that use of this respects due weight. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable Those accusation are also reporting by way many local (HK) media in Chinese language. So, no point to make sloppy accusation based on their foundation goal. Matthew hk (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Huh? That doesn’t say anything about whether HKFP is reliable, only about the particular accusations with overlapping coverage. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, HKFP has a close working relationship with the Apple Daily. It has more than just "liberal bias"; its news is often written to suit the (anti-government) activists' taste, i.e., what the activists claim maybe written as facts. I think the reliability of its contents would be questionable. STSC (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable Please take a look at HKFP and judge for yourself. For example the "Latest Hong Kong News" section as of Nov 16th, 2019 is called "Interview: Ex-head of legislature Jasper Tsang says the gov’t is weakest player of four in Hong Kong’s struggle" actually a purely opinion article. The article did not provide details about the interview, merely stating the interview took place "last month" - yet this is "Latest News" as at November 16, 2019 and given front page coverage. Obviously, none of the events spoken in the interview is "news" as of November 2019.

Finally... the biggest problem with this story is... the original story is actually reported here: https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/051119/hong-kong-le-gouvernement-devrait-accorder-une-forme-d-amnistie HKFP article appear to have been lifted from MediaPart's interview on Nov 5, 2019 without citation of the original source. This is very very bad journalism. Conclusion: Not reliable. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable I've not come across anything that would suggest that they are unreliable. They only have a small team, so they cannot report on everything. They may choose to focus on the topics their readers are interested in (like every news organisation on the planet does). I've not seen or heard any suggestion that their reporting is fraudulent, dishonest, or anything else that would warrant an accusation of their being unreliable as a source of news. They do publish a lot of opinion pieces, but these are always labelled as such as far as I've seen, which, again, is something that a great number of newspapers do. As long as these articles are not confused with their actual news reporting, I don't see any problem with their having opinion pieces, or interviews with prominent figures (such as the interview with Jasper Tsang cited above). Kdm852 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to differentiate between their own reporting and reporting that are sourced from AFP or others. when you assert that they are RS, you can only assess when they originate the report themselves. in which case the pool of articles you are assessing from becomes extremely limited, since they publish very few pieces of reported news. and when they did try to do their own report, they've done poorly, as stated above. you said you've found nothing wrong with the interview - well of course, because they did not do the interview. it was sourced. but they did not cite that fact. which is a problem. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Another Example Here is another example of problems with their journalism when they are the original source of the report: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/11/16/breaking-chinese-army-help-clear-debris-made-protesters-hong-kong-baptist-university/

By comparison, this is a similar report on the story by RTHK. https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1492616-20191116.htm

The RTHK article was published 24 minutes before HKFP and properly referenced the original source is HKT. Both RTHK and HKFP are reporting on the same story and used the exact same interview of a woman. But RTHK properly attributes the source where as HKFP did not. That is bad.

Furthermore, HKFP reports that "Pro-democracy lawmakers issued a joint statement strongly condemning the incident, saying the incident violated the Basic Law. “The SAR government must immediately explain to Hong Kong residents as to whether it has, in accordance to article 14 of the garrison law, asked the central government to request the garrison in Hong Kong to assist in maintaining social order and conduct relief work,” they said. “If yes, the SAR government has continued to fall, escaping from resolving political problems by political means.”" The obvious problem here is, its unsourced. Lawmakers are public figures. They should be named. What HKFP is saying may still be true, but their journalism is just plain bad.

Here is another report on the same story :https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-pla-soldiers-seen-helping-clean-up-streets-after-hong-kong-protests You can see here its properly sourced from Reuters and Bloomberg. And the lawmaker making the complaint is identified as James To. And he was properly interviewed for comments and properly cited.

In summary, HKFP has poor journalistic practices (when they are doing the original reporting). So why are we citing from HKFP when much better sources are available with proper referencing and citations? These guys operate like a fly-by-night operation. There seem to be minimal checks on the news reporting that they do. They are primarily an outlet for opinion, not news. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Because in that instance, HKFP is reporting on a "joint statement", so I don't see the point of mentioning 20+ names. RTHK likewise did not do so, so by your standard, they have poor journalistic practice as well. I don't think HKPF and RTHK cited anyone because both are doing original reporting. Judging reliability based on the quality of several articles is not ideal. I will say that they are reliable from their About page. The commendations from Reporters Without Borders alone is more than sufficient, and they have been commonly cited by other foreign news outlets, probably way more so than the likes of The Standard. Another key point is that we don't have a lot of Hong Kong-based English news outlets that are independent, and while it is not the best source out there, it makes WP:V significantly easier (because we will have to replace them with Chinese source which not everyone here can understand). OceanHok (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on the part that HKFP should be used as a result of them being an independent English source. HKFP is founded by British and is clearly pro-British. If you go to their twitter feeds right now, they even quote the British public figures... you don't seem them quoting any Chinese speakers in similar prominence. To give such prominence (or worship) to white foreigners, who don't even live in HK on the current subject, as if they are some authoritative voice, is borderline colonialism. It really draws the question if they are as independent as they claim to be. They are also sloppy, as I previous showed. Another example of sloppiness appeared in today's article where they accused police of using LRAD as a weapon to induce dizziness. They've now retracted that claim, but not before these rumors are spreading like wildfires online. This is a problem, because they simply don't have resources to check their own work, especially when the "facts" are going their way. To be a Reliable Source, they actually need to do their own fact check. You can't just blindly say "because someone said it, so we can print it". Thats not RS. A real RS actually has to vouch for the validity of the claim being asserted. And if someone is saying bullshit, the RS has a responsibility to actually point that out on their reports or interview the opposing side for a rebuttal. 192.0.235.66 (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable has an experienced staff and opinion pieces are carefully marked as such. Also this ip commenting here is an SPA regarding the Hong Kong protests and seems to be parroting the official Chinese view so their views should be treated with caution imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I haven't investigated HKFP, but I would like to note that the IP appears to be inadvertently presenting a case in support of reliability. The IP appears to citing parallel sources which confirm content that was published HKFP, while attempting to ding HKFP for details that don't appear in HKFP. Reliability is about whether we can rely on the content that is published in a source. That reliability does not diminish just because someone disagrees with the author's decision to leave out names or other unnecessary details. Alsee (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. If you go and check out the team's profile, you can see they have a strong journalism profile, worked in many newspapers before. Article looks professional. IP claims are also not strong enough to prove that HKFP is not a reliable source. —Wefk423 (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Their 2018 Annual Report clearly shows that they are a well-run operation with paid, experienced staff writers, and they carried many scoops that are subsequently reported by many other outlets. Opinion pieces should of course be treated under WP:RSOPINION. feminist (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. I have used HKFP as a source on Wikipedia for many years and have not observed any issues. The above allegations presented above are exceptionally weak – e.g. that the Jasper Tsang interview was "lifted" from a French outlet, when the author is clearly cited as a "guest contributor" on HKFP and given a byline, or that the interview is somehow an "opinion piece". Citobun (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. While Hong Kong has struggled with censorship The Hong Kong Free Press is a notable exception — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcibiades979 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: When it comes to accusations of misconduct, there certainly seems to be some misleading wording from HKFP. For example: in this article about a police van speeding towards protesters, the HKFP writes that:

  When asked about police vehicles speeding into the crowd, Wong said it was necessary for officers to take such measures when facing attacks from protesters. “[Driving] fast doesn’t mean it is unsafe. For our police officers, they all well trained,” he said. “Be [confident in] the police. And please be [supportive] to the police”...

  But per HKFP’s own video of the interview (which I can’t link due to the WP blacklist), the response was “about the high speed of our police bus” in general (the “second part of the question”) rather than the specific incident (the ignored “first part” relating to the reporter’s video). The wording is misleading in suggesting that the response was condoning the particular incident of a van running into a crowd that the article focuses on, rather than defending the speed of driving used in protest control tactics generally.
  Slightly misleading wording against the police seems to be a trend in some of the misconduct allegation reports. — MarkH21 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. If these are the most “misleading” wordings people can find Hong Kong Free Press must be one of of the most reliable sources in East Asia... As always opinion pieces should be given much less weight than news pieces but thats true of all papers. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hotair and thepostmillennial

Out of the three citations, this diff removed thepostmillennial citing "non-WP:RS". But as far as I understand, neither hotair nor thepostmillennail is explicitly verified to be WP:RS (I checked this list). What am I misunderstanding (in regards to policy)? Also, I never heard of hotair; so if we are removing one reference shouldn't it be hotair (which sees much less notable than others)? (Please ping me when replying) —Srid^🍁 20:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment: this article is a spectacular example of the problem with allowing "Criticism" and "Controversy" sections to grow unchecked and out-of-control. It's not an encyclopedic discussion and distillation of the special, more a compendium of just about everything anyone has ever said about it somewhere on the Internets, either positive or negative. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, Aye. For this we have Wikiquote, which is a genuinely superb repository of every turd ever shat. Guy (help!) 21:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In this particlar case I'm also skeptical of the several reviewers speculated thing, which in this case was used to cite several highly partisan, low-quality outlets without revealing who they were with in-line cites (the other source is the Washington Examiner, which is likewise a heavily-partisan outlet.) I think that while WP:RS could in theory allow those sources to be cited with in-line citations if their bias was made clear, there would be WP:DUE issues - but citing them behind a vague "several sources" summary goes against the idea that WP:BIASED sources needs their biases made clear, and is at least a little bit WP:SYNTHy. It's something better cited to a reliable secondary source we can cite for statements of fact, summarizing coverage, rather than by using a bunch of opinion-pieces. And when no secondary coverage has summarized the opinion like that, it's probably not so relevant. --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the only detailed coverage I could find of it, which describes it as [blurring the] line between journalism and conservative 'pamphleteering', notes that their investigation found poor transparency around its political ties — for one thing, many of its writers have openly campaigned for conservative politicians, and that, while it has an ethics policy, The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. At the end they quote a professor of journalism they contacted for the story, who says "They claim to be journalists, but they mostly aggregate stuff from other sources and then do op-eds on it," said Conter. "They're perfectly within their rights to be publishing what they're doing, of course. But I would say it's less journalism and more pamphleteering." This does not support the idea that they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires (the plagiarized journalistic ethics statement is particularly alarming.) Reliability is contextual to an extent, but this is not the sort of source we should be citing when we have alternatives, or for opinions without an in-line citation. And, of course, WP:RS/P is not an exhaustive list of non-WP:RS sources (such a list wouldn't be feasible to create in the first place.) I didn't notice that the remaining cite was Hot Air (which is, yes, scarcely better) or I would have removed the cited text entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that I look closer, that entire section has sourcing problems. We were citing Rotten Tomato user scores directly (which I believe WP:USERGENERATED prohibits); even the IMDB score only cites Newsweek as the secondary source. Other sources include "Legal Insurrection" (a blog) and Tim pool's show (self-published) alleging obviously WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:FRINGE claims of tampering, and 'reviews' cited to a Medium post, several more blogs, a twitter post, and numerous partisan outlets (often with no in-line citations making their bias clear.) I'll remove the worst of it, but it probably needs a closer eye. --Aquillion (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, since it came up, this edit added this opinion piece as a secondary source for the Rotten Tomatoes user score. I don't think we can use an opinion piece for a statement of fact; we could present the interpretation that that Rotten Tomatoes user score is accurate and represents universal acclaim as that person's opinion, but we can't use it to justify presenting that as factual that way. It'd be a better source for opinion than some stuff currently in that section, mind you; but we can't use it to say "this show was beloved by viewers" as a statement of fact --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

While that is generally the policy, in this specific context I'd argue otherwise. See the section below. —Srid^🍁 17:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Both of these sources probably should be dropped from the article as WP:UNDUE. In general: Hotair is bad, but (as Aquillion's link illustrates)the Post Millennial is absolutely radioactive, especially for BLP issues. Several or their recent articles on Zoe Quinn looked like lightly-edited transcripts of Reddit threads. I've been trying to periodically do a linksearch to eliminate any citations of it on Wikipedia, and others might consider doing the same. Nblund ^talk 16:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not every bad source is a perennial source But if people keep trying to put that racist claptrap spam site the Postmillenial up as a source, we may need to add it to the list. It's not reliable in any way, shape or form, let alone for BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support proposer's edit reversion and Comment While The Post Millennial 's editorial review processes are unclear, I am also not in favour of relying, exclusively, on an explicit list of reliable sources. In an edit dispute, it should be taken to the applicable talk page or peer review should be engaged to evaluate a given source in a context-specific situation. In short, there can be good reasons for using non-explicitly mentioned reliable sources. Because of my reason, I would oppose including The Post Millennial for now, without prejudice to considering it in the future when they further delineate their editorial review processes. -DM

Citing an unpublished freedom of information request

For the BLP Víctor Manuel Vázquez Mireles, there have been no public updates on him since 2013 but MX has an unpublished freedom of information request from the Mexican government giving more details. Is this a reliable source if attributed? And how would you cite such information, {{cite report}} or similar? Thanks! Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is it being accessed from?Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@MX: Any chance of getting the FoI put on WikiSource? Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: comparing Fox News real-time coverage of the impeachment inquiry with other outlets'

In past discussions some editors claimed, despite a wealth of contradictory evidence (including peer-reviewed studies, books and other analyses),[93] that Fox News's news division and/or website should be considered "generally reliable". We now have the opportunity to examine this hypothesis in real time, with the ongoing Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump that is being broadcast live from the US Congress. You may use a website like News Compare, but you'd probably do better to just open some of these websites side by side in your browser. You'll notice major differences in coverage between Fox and virtually every other mainstream outlet (including "traditional" conservatives like the Wall Street Journal); it is certainly closer in tone (though unparalleled in breadth) to the Daily Caller, the Federalist and Newsmax. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Tone and bias are not elements to consider about reliability of the Fox News desk. I would expect nothing less from Fox News to downplay the hearings, but otherwise report on what is happening factually. --Masem (t) 22:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I have five dollars on Fox leading with Taylor reading the "perfect call" text. Guy (help!) 01:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: for your perusal: [94][95][96][97][98] (and more generally this). François Robere (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, anyone who has the stomach for it is welcome, at least in project or user space. Guy (help!) 01:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well shit. Lou Dobbs just had a guest who says the entire Ukraine thing is a set-up by George Soros, who controls the deep state. If this is truly where they are going with this impeachment then I think we have to look at a filter to exclude Fox from articles in any article under AP2. Guy (help!) 09:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Lou Dobbs is an opinion and analysis show, and not one which we look to for factual reporting. We wouldn't use such a source under any other TV station. Fox News is not particularly special in that regard. --Jayron32 12:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• "Opinion and analysis shows" aren't supposed to be "fact-free". "It's only an opinion" isn't a license to lie.[99] François Robere (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Francois, you are missing the point... The outlet does not matter. We shouldn’t use opinion unless attributed. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• True. But, the site is mostly opinion. O3000 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• I disagree - the outlet does matter (see WP:NEWSORG). Saying the outlet doesn't matter is like saying Astrologer's Daily is an accepted venue for medical advice, as long as the doctor is certified. It isn't. "Fox" can't be considered a serious news outlet when it's giving half (or more) of its airtime to conspiracy theorists. François Robere (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, that's the exact opposite of what we are saying. What we are saying is that we wouldn't cite the Astrology column from ANY newspaper regardless of whether or not the rest of the newspaper was generally good or not. --Jayron32 17:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well, near as I can figure looking at the main section of the Fox site this morning, Democrats are in trouble, there was no quid pro quo, a link between Biden and the whistleblower would be important, the hearings are ridiculous, government employees working against the president should resign, and a Democrat is embarrassed to be in the party and may switch parties. The only thing I can find about the actual testimony is a claim that it is wrong. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Objective3000, also it's all hearsay and the Democrats aren't calling any witnesses with actual first hand knowledge. You know, like Bolton, Mulvaney and the rest... Guy (help!) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Gee willikers - it's beginning to sound like the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Well, at least we have the transcript of the phone conversation and don't have to depend on ^{what only the news outlets report and if needed, we can collaborate the testimony, such as:} I didn't actually hear the discussion, but so-and-so said which is 2nd hand speculation riddled with potential misinterpretations and wishful thinking ^{by Fox news anchors and other outlets.} The key people who actually participated in the discussion deny there was pressure or a quid-pro-quo, and they should know, right? Points back to entertainment news - higher ratings - ^{that all news outlets seek, including Fox} and that's why we have WP:RECENTISM. It's good to listen to more than one POV ^{not just Fox News} to see what they have to say and even better to actually hear what they're saying in order to process the info accurately. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC) ^{<:sup>16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)}
  • Please be mindful of NOTFORUM, Atsme, Nothing I see in your post is about Fox's coverage or its appropriateness as a source for Wikipedia. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the reminder, Drmies - when I attempt brevity, inadvertent omission is sometimes the result - I added clarity to avoid further confusion. Wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm a forumest. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Your post contains several incorrect statements and suggestions parroting Fox -- which I shall not correct as it is still forumy. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Atsme, By "Russian collusion conspiracy theory" I presume you mean the conspiracy theory that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, as every single US and allied intelligence agency says, but instead it was Ukraine in the library with the lead pipe, colluding with the DNC so that Hillary would, er, lose and then Tryump could be impeached using the majority in Congress they would get in 2018 and presumably 2020? Guy (help!) 19:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Guy, no - please don't presume. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  Atsme, Please do enlighten us. There are so many. Only yesterday, Devin Nunes was pushing one about Joe Biden having the corrupt prosecutor who wasn't investigating Burisma fired in order to protect Hunter by making it more likely that Burisma would be investigated. Guy (help!) 21:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Any criticism of Devin Nunes is racist. It is like saying that Mexico is not sending its best. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a categorically absurd argument. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wait, cows are a protected class now? Guy (help!) 13:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, depends who you ask... François Robere (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing unique about the impeachment hearings. If you wish to compare coverage, you can compare literally any story covered by Fox and also covered by other outlets. It's not as if most or all of the major news outlets don't routinely cover exactly the same stories. This is the 19th listed discussion about Fox at RSP, with the most recent taking place not even a month ago. That WP:RECENTISM entices you to believe that what happens to be on your television at the moment is somehow special, doesn't mean it is. GMG^talk 15:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• GreenMeansGo, Oh I am well aware of the issues with Fox, it's just that this particular event offers an opportunity to compare coverage on an item where the facts are by now very well known - it's clear that Fox is not operating on the same fact base as the international or mainstream US media. Guy (help!) 19:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not unique, no, but their prominence, length and focus will force outlets to hone in on specific narratives, allowing us to judge their approaches to reporting in a concentrated manner. The usual news cycle only gets you a handful of stories that you can easily compare across outlets (and by "easy" I mean "that are suitable for these fora"); the hearings would net us twenty such stories every day. François Robere (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• To do what with? Start a 20th discussion, because despite having peer-reviewed studies, books and other analyses, the RECENTISM of the impeachment debate is so especially super-saiyan RECENTISM that it will single-handedly overturn the discussion we had all of two weeks ago? GMG^talk 22:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nope. I'm just suggesting to those who are interested to follow this coverage, on their own or on record. I trust that some of our colleagues here are receptive to evidence; this could be it for them. François Robere (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think it is completely fair to suggest that an entire outlet could be rendered unreliable-by-association for a topic if it not only routinely, but overwhelmingly, publishes utter garbage conspiracy nonsense about that topic. Even admitting that much of the nonsense is labeled opinion, and some of the content is accurate, this becomes a situation much like The Daily Mail where the only way we know that the outlet is accurate is by comparing to sources not totally compromised by blind partisanship. And therefore it's reasonable to propose that this source simply not be used for this topic (what's good ain't unique and what's unique ain't good), unless we're quoting someone we have decided has a significant opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good luck finding ANY news sources that aren’t partisan. That said, I too encourage editors to read a wide variety of sources. It is only by reading sources from a wide spectrum of viewpoints that one can begin to see what is fact and what is opinion. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• The key phrase here is not only routinely, but overwhelmingly, publishes utter garbage conspiracy nonsense about that topic. No other mainstream outlet does even remotely close. François Robere (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Blueboar, Bloomberg, AP, Reuters, Financial Times. Also ABC, BusinessInsider and NPR are pretty good. Guy (help!) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• GreenMeansGo, Recentism or not: it is clear that Fox's news reporting on this issue is substantially out of step with the mainstream. I would never cite Fox at all, but it seems to me that we should at least be blacklisting it in the context of contemporary US politics, because Fox was founded as a conservative propaganda outlet by Ailes and the evidence very clearly shows that it is fulfilling that goal right now. Guy (help!) 00:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we really need a moratorium on questioning the reliability of the news desk of Fox. We've established several times over now: Fox's op-eds and talk shows (very much its talk shows) are crap and can't be trusted for anything, but the news side, while biased, has shown the qualities we ask for in an RS (editorial control, fact-checking) and thus is reliable, but with the cavaet that we'd like to see corroborating or other coverage used instead. Until there is clear evidence that Fox News is clearly falsifying its news (as was done in the case of Daily Mail and Breitbart) or losing its editorial control, there seems to be no reason to continue to express doubt on its use. --Masem (t) 17:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: I've left you some links upstairs ([100][101][102][103][104], and more generally this). Haven't heard from you since... François Robere (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll second Masem's analysis here. We've already noted before that FoxNews's factual news-reporting wing meets the requirements of a reliable source. The notion that they choose to focus their fact-gathering and reporting on different stories than other sources do (which, AFAICT, is the main focus of the OPs discussion) is not an issue. News organizations are free to choose which stories to put resources into, so long as the news they actually produce has the hallmarks of a reliable source, we shouldn't keep trying to ban them. We've long established that for the narrow scope of bona fide news, FoxNews is not unreliable (as opposed to their political rants, talk shows, etc. which are excrement). The repeated, over-and-over again attempts to put them in the same category as DM and the like is growing wearisome, it's an attempt at "death by a thousand cuts" and has long bridged over into the WP:DTS territory. I would also support a moratorium on any discussion of FoxNews's news-reporting unless and until someone can present an actual case of widespread falsification or lack of editorial control. --Jayron32 17:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The main thrust of consensus opinion seems to be that while Fox's news is reliable, it's opinion pieces are biased. Why then is there no argument about New York Times masquerading opinion pieces as "news" and the SPLC self publishing nothing but opinion pieces? They are both deemed reliable sources for the purposes of editing Wikipedia articles. I have reservations with Fox News too, but why are they in the crosshairs, rather than NYT and SPLC? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Why? Because their bias is not so extreme that they become counterfactual. Fox News opinions aren't just extremely partisan, they push falsehoods and lie to us ALL THE TIME! Fox News (the whole network) was created by Roger Ailes for one purpose (pure history here) to push the GOP party line, and they push it very hard, facts be damned. The others remain connected to facts, regardless of their biases. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this discussion was about the FoxNews. Please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss the reliability of the New York Times or other sources, please start new discussions about those. --Jayron32 20:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a clever bit of deflection Jayron32. This noticeboard is about reliable sources. The proximate section is about Fox News. NYT and SPLC are by consensus considered reliable sources by thw Wikipedia community, and hence are eligible for comparison against other potentially reliable sources, like Fox News. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

What aspect of the NYT factual news reporting do you find to be inadequate then? (and I'm still not sure why we're discussing it here, but OK, if you insist)? --Jayron32 21:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that neither the NYT nor the SPLC actually does “real time coverage” of the hearings, we can’t compare them with Fox (who has). We would need to compare Fox with other continuous news outlets ... like CNN or MSNBC. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Might be a bit off topic, but at least in the NYT, they will routine post stories throughout the day and update existing ones when the situation changes. This is fine and acceptable for an RS, but I would actually consider this as close to "real-time" compared to something like either Fox or CNN. Just airing the hearings/debates live are not "reporting" but it is the analysis/meaning/interpretation by the talking heads right after the headings that is real-time, and that's the stuff we should be careful of using hot off the press per RECENTING. But this applies across the board, not just FOX, but NYTimes, CNN, etc. --Masem (t) 05:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a fair analysis, but it avoids the meta-category under discussion, whether or not Fox News is reliable. Their coverage of the impeachment inquiry is a subset of that larger question. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

47.137.189.77/47.137.189.72 has been blocked for recurring sockpuppetry. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Their basic coverage of the actual hearings is reliable. Their analysis and opinion segments about the hearings are not reliable. The same is true for all the other outlets. The problem is that our editors can’t seem to tell the difference between news reporting, and news analysis or opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Some bits from the last two weeks: [105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112] (and more generally that). I also must wonder, again, what does it say of a news organization that half of its airtime is, by your definition, "excrement". François Robere (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. The first link is about FoxNews's website choosing certain words to describe the tone of a respondent. Such matters speak to tone of writing, but there is nothing there about FoxNews misrepresenting the words used. The second link describes a contributor to America's Newsroom, which is not a factual newsreporting show, but as described in our article as a political analysis show; we would never use statements made in political analysis shows from ANY news source, Fox is not special there. So it isn't relevant discussions about using FoxNews's news reporting. The others similarly are problems with shows on Fox that are not, strictly speaking, news shows. Yes, shows outside of news reporting are not reliable sources. This is true of other places. For example, CBS broadcasts the show Survivor. I would not use thing said by contestants on that show as reliable statements of news facts, though I would use the CBS Evening News as a reliable source. Similarly, I would not use America's Newsroom as a source of news information, but I would use, for example, reports on Fox Report, which is a hard news program without analysis. --Jayron32 13:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Jayron32, Tone matters. One of the problems with the Daily Mail is its tendency to focus on misogynist labels when describing women ("shrill" and so on).

Reliability and bias matter too. Reviewing Fox News scores at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ and trying to filter out opinion, you notice two things: first, the vast majority of Fox content is opinion, and second, that the news content still scores low for quality and high for bias. Bias scores of well over 10 on their scale are common in Fox's supposed straight news reporting. Bias skews heavily with the political impact of the story.

For a general article I look for Quality of >40 and Bias of <20 (their "green box"). For politics and political BLPs my benchmark is Washington Post (bias L5.1, quality 44.6). There are limited exceptions, such as WSJ opinion on climate change, but for the most part this works for me. Fox's score is R18.5 bias and 30.1 quality.

That's just one ranking system, of course, but every one I have looked at rates Fox as low for reliability and high for bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings only looks at bias, not quality, and rates Fox's non-opinion content as "lean right" not "right" (and WaPo as "lean left"), it's unclear how old this is as Fox is moving further right especially during the impeachment hearings. Reading Fox's non-opinion reporting on this is almost indistinguishable from the opinion reporting, it uncritically references talking points like the Ukraine election interference conspiracy theory. Guy (help!) 14:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tone of Wikipedia articles does matter, which is why we don't mime sources, but use information from sources and write using our own house tone (WP:NPOV). We neither mime overly praiseworthy tone (purple prose) nor overly critical tone, but aim to write in a neutral encyclopedic tone. That another source uses a different tone doesn't mean we don't use the information in it, it means we use the information in our own house tone. On the balance, I will note that I have never used FoxNews as a source, because I have found better sources out there; reliability here is not a binary state, but a continuum, on which there is a point where we shouldn't use a source. I find FoxNews to be just barely on the correct side of that point, meaning that I don't think we should ban it (as we do with Daily Mail, et. al.) but I do find that it is rare that there isn't a higher quality source we could use. On the matter of "should we ban the use of FoxNews's news reporting", no, I don't think we should. However, saying that doesn't mean I would actually use it myself as a reference. --Jayron32 14:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

1. there is nothing there about FoxNews misrepresenting the words used In American jargon, "snap" suggests a loss of control.[113] Vindman, objectively, did not "snap". That's very much a factual issue.
2. America's Newsroom, which is not a factual newsreporting show You must be kidding. Hosts Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith, and former hosts Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCallum and Shannon Bream are all considered journalists, and work for Fox's news division. The very same article you quote states that "[America's Newsroom] is one of FNC's eight current straight news programs" (emphasis mine).
3. CBS broadcasts the show Survivor Are you seriously equating between "Survivor" and "America's Newsroom"? CBS is a network, where CBS News is just one channel. Fox News, in the past, was just one channel within 20th Century Fox; today it is both a dedicated news network and the leading channel within that network. It is not supposed to broadcast entertainment anymore than CBS News is supposed to broadcast "Survivor" - which it doesn't. Per your logic we should treat Fox as an entertainment channel, discard 95% of its broadcasts (295%, counting its sister channels), and assume the "News" in the name of the network is a self-aware sham, which itself raises reliability issues. Is that correct? François Robere (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Any "news" show where the format is structured around talking head interviews touching on current news, which would include Fox's American Newsroom as well as programs like NBC's Meet the Press, should always be considered as a starting point, under RSOPINION, even if they have anchors factually reporting on events. It is very unlikely that some factual elements will only be reported by one of these shows and not in any other more "pure" news source (eg America's News Headquarters, NBC Nightly News, or the like). This is true for any network that considers themselves 24/7 "news coverage", because we all know you cannot fill 24/7 fully with relevant news - that's where the talking head shows come into play to fill the time slots. These networks (Fox included) love events like the impeachment hearings because it gives them news to show and then build on for their analysts and opinion makers. This is the same situation at any respected print source - NYTimes, etc.; the news desks does the journalism, and their editorial staff jump on that to provide commentary. We have the same distinction in print as we have in television, and just as I would discuss all Fox News talking head shows as an RS, I would do the same for NBC's, CNN's, talking head shows.

Once that point is made, then a key distinction is that if we were looking to include appropriate DUE analysis and opinion (within the context of RECENTISM), I would keep any Fox News talking head program at a distance while would reasonably use any talking head program from NBC, CNN, etc. as a possible starting point, because of the incredible bias and misinformation that the Fox shows make, something that has not really been seen in the other networks. They might have biases but they are so not far out from central to be considered extreme or fringe views. --Masem (t) 20:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all, in your first statement you suggest we're past the "Fox's News vs Opinions" division (or, quite literally, divisions) and down to the level of individual shows (as "America's Newsroom" is part of the News division, but you still don't trust it); then you're back to "Fox shows have incredible bias and misinformation", so you don't trust them. So what level are we judging this - show level? Division level? Network level? And if you insist that we shouldn't judge it at the network level, doesn't the prominence of unreliable shows in both divisions suggest there's a problem at the network-level? Remember we're supposed to judge outlets on editorial standards, and that's not something you judge solely on the basis of individual shows.

Second, do you have sources that support this statement? it is very unlikely that some factual elements will only be reported by one of these shows This isn't how this works from my experience, and I have provided sources to the contrary. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am specifically speaking only to Fox's talking head/interview/analysis/opinion shows that can't be used for fact and that I would stay far away from for using opinion. Not the actual news shows that give zero personal opinion or analysis, which are fine for factual reporting. In the interview style shows, their talking points are things already featured in the news in some way (otherwise, why are they talking points). --Masem (t) 21:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

So, again, are you suggesting Bret Baier et al. are comparable to Sean Hannity & Co. in their capacity of talking head/interview/analysis shows? If so, what exactly is left of Fox News that we can use - about an hour a day?

Also, again, opinion journalists do do reporting, and can provide you with new information. Where do you stand on that? François Robere (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Even a blind dog can still piss on the tree sometimes. It doesn't mean I have to accept wet trousers the rest of the time. --Jayron32 16:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

First, I'm of the opinion (no pun intended) that we should avoid any opinionated reporting from any source for any current event per RECENTISM, or at least making sure only the factual elements from such are only used.

Second, if you do the same "subtraction" of the talking-head and interview shows from any other news network like CNN or MSNBC, you'd have the same situation, only maybe a few hours per day of straight up news reporting without any inserted opinion or analysis. This is what happens when you have 24/7 news coverage, it is not all content that is appropriate for the encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 17:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking about Fox. Are you of the opinion that Fox is "generally crap", regardless of whether it's reporters or anchors, except for the three-o'clock news (which was Shepard Smith's show)? Also, can you please help Jayron32 out of his metaphor? François Robere (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

        Reliability continuum
<------------------|------------------->
     never use          OK to use
 ^                   ^                ^
 |                   |                |
worst possible      Fox              best possible source
source ever         News             ever

@Jayron32: FoxNews is not unreliable (as opposed to their political rants, talk shows, etc. which are excrement). Their news shows must be really exquisite if they manage to balance that out. François Robere (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Their news reporting currently repeats conspiracy theories as fact. Guy (help!) 11:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak to the live reporting or news videos, but their written articles are fine. For example, in this recent article [114], they make sure to state that this theory about Ukrainian interference is only something being pushed by Trump, Nunes, and other Republican members of Congress. In their summary at the top, they say this, The inquiry, at its core, has focused on how Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations related to the Bidens, as well as alleged actions taken by Ukraine in the 2016 election, as military aid was withheld. They say "Trump pressured Ukraine" as a fact, while describing the conspiracy theory about Ukrainian interference as "alleged". It's not the greatest article I've ever read (they take the "A said X, but then B said Y" approach far too often), but it certainly isn't condoning conspiracy theories, and all the factual claims are basically equivalent to other major news sources. Having been reading Fox quite a bit over the past week, I haven't noticed any factual discrepancies between them and other news sources. The headlines are often sensationalist bullshit that isn't supported by the text of the article, but basically every newspaper has that same problem.

Oh, and if we're discussing Fox News as a whole, we have to acknowledge that their polling is some of the best in American politics, and generally considered very reliable. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See §4 in the "first formulation" here. François Robere (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

While Fox News may exhibit a bias it has been shown time and time again that it is still a generally reliable source. Yes its talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight do not have this reliability the overall coverage like from its website is still generally reliable.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Carl Bernstein on Fox

There's a great interview between Preet Bharara and Carl Bernstein which discusses Fox at some length. Bernstein knew Roger Ailes in the Nixon White House. He refers to Fox as the most powerful actor in "the cold civil war" and fundamentally uninterested in the pursuit of a shared body of fact - that is not what Fox is for. As I think he shows, it's a legitimate purpose, or at least a permissible one, but it's not news, it fundamentally is propaganda (though he does not explicitly say this). [115].

Check for yourself, I am sure my biases colour my interpretation. Guy (help!) 11:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That was an excellent interview. Thanks for that. François Robere (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• A Fox “News” story that somehow fails to identify any of th3 liberals calling for thanksgiving to be renamed. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-thanksgiving-name-change-sunrise-florida-rally-liberal-left Guy (help!) 14:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the story is written "This is what Trump has said", rather than covering this "war on thanksgiving" broadly, I fail to see a problem in considering an RS. RS identification has never included whether the RS is writing completely about the story at hand. That Trump might be running on misconceptions (reading other news sources on it across the board) may be part of the story, but completeness is never a criteria to judge RS -- though that said, this is why I'd prefer to use NYTimes or BBC over Fox for the same story because the former are known for thorough coverage. --Masem (t) 14:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Is AccountingCoach a reliable source? Alternatives?

Hi All,

I tried to update the "Payroll" Wikipedia Page's "Net Pay" section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll). I was going to use AccountingCoach as a source, but it was flagged as unreliable (https://www.accountingcoach.com/terms/N/net-pay). Would Investopedia (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/take-home-pay.asp) be a better alternative? Thank you! New to the Wikipedia community and want to be sure I know how to properly cite reliable sources in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelwriting (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rachelwriting, the main issue with AccountingCoach is that it's written by one author, which makes it a self-published source. The "About the Author" footer on AccountingCoach's about page (and all of its other pages) states that Harold Averkamp "is the sole author of all the materials on AccountingCoach.com". To be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, the source generally needs to have an editorial process by which its published writings are reviewed by a separate editor. Investopedia (RSP entry) is a more reliable source, since it has an editorial team of 5 people and strong editorial standards. However, Investopedia is a tertiary source, and if you could find a reliable secondary source, that would be even better. — Newslinger talk 07:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you so much for getting back to me! Best.

Rotten Tomatoes audience score

Per WP:USERGENERATED Rotten Tomatoes' audience score cannot be used. So I added an article from Financial Times's Opinion section[116]. That was removed[117] (by User:Aquillion, FWIW) stating "That's another opinion piece, and we can't cite an opinion piece for statements of fact.". Is this source in fact unsuitable to cite audience score, just because it is in the opinion section of FT? (Please ping when responding) —Srid^🍁 16:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I found another from CNBC[118] which states "viewers gave it a 99% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. ". —Srid^🍁 17:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

But the source is ultimately still usergenerated content even if it is being quoted elsewhere. IIRC I think the main concern with Rottentomatoes is that the audience scores for controversial films are vulnerable to being manipulated. I'm not sure that just being cited elsewhere solves that problem. Nblund ^talk 17:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly (and I re-read WP:USERGENERATED just to be sure), we never mention RT audience score ever in Wikipedia? —Srid^🍁 18:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. It’s not a reputable metric in any circumstance. User-generated scores aren’t reliable sources. Scientific polling like PostTrak or CinemaScore are, however. Toa Nidhiki05 21:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc, I'd say you are correct. Tomatometer is fine though. Guy (help!) 19:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source for what critics thought. The user-generated parts should not be used. Removing it in this edit is wrong, because this part is not user-generated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Rotten Tomatoes is a usually reliable aggregator of the published opinions of professional movie critics, and that is encyclopedic information. On the other hand, user generated opinions by random ticket buyers expressed on Rotten Tomatoes are no more reliable than somebody shooting their mouth off on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram. In other words, not worthy of mention in an encylopedia, even if mentioned in another source. The potential for manipulation and gaming the system is very real. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

They're not even necessarily ticket buyers – anyone can leave a comment in the user-generated parts of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. This is addressed in MOS:FILM#Audience response, which discusses the potential for brigading. The MOS reccomends using companies like PostTrak and CinemaScore instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User-generated scores are okay to use only if they are the subject of RSes: for example, that The Shawshank Redemption has been the #1 film on IMDB for the longest time is well documented in RSes. The entire review bomb article exists because RSes have noticed users negatively reviewing things to express outrage/etc. But key is the RSes that note that, at which point the question becomes one of UNDUE. Thus one has to consider in this case that we have an RS but also an opinion piece, so the question is whether this opinion is sufficient enough to include (FT is usually an RS, its that it is an opinion that begs the question). --Masem (t) 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User-generated scores should only be cited in the very limited case of discussions of gaming the system where review bombing is specifically discussed, or similar situations. They should NEVER be cited in cases where the review is presented uncritically, even when the score itself is being cited to another source that used it. The laziness of other sources is not a reason for us to be lazy as well. We would not accept, as a source, a news article that uncritically took something like Wikia/FANDOM articles or IMDB user comments as reliable either. --Jayron32 17:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Media Matters for America

Media Matters for America is a well-known partisan non-profit organization, linked and directly connected with multiple David Brock- and John Podesta-controlled political action committees (PACs). So, on the same basis that we do not consider Republican or Democratic PACs to be notionally reliable sources, I'm going to propose, again, that Media Matters' status as a reliable source to be changed to redlisted or blacklisted (whichever is preferred). --Doug Mehus T·C 00:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable source, and throw out this RFC as a waste of time that didn't do the research - people who don't like them keep objecting to them on political grounds, but their content and processes are solid. Have you reviewed the previous discussions of them? You should definitely, in fairness, be linking said discussions, and putting the question in a form that shows awareness of them - David Gerard (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  David Gerard, HA! People that like them haven't read Sharyl Attkisson's The Smear and Stonewalled. Media Matters, despite the name, is not some media watchdog like ProPublica (see RfC above) or the Pew Research Centre, which are both very reliable sources. They are an ultra-partisan group that engages in opposition research, astroturf, and partisan activities. Doug Mehus T·C 00:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dmehus, Attkisson has a less than perfect reputation when it comes to the whole business of knowing truth from bullshit. Guy (help!) 00:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Respectfully disagree here, and you and I agree a lot. Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Doug Mehus, Guy is being very diplomatic and understated. Attkisson is in the same class as Limbaugh/Hannity/Carlson/Solomon, IOW SHE totally unreliable, but Media Matters is reliable. They are indeed partisan and biased, but they are factual, and therefore we can use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, I would not put her in the same class as Limbaugh/Hannity/Solomon. I wouldn't even put Carlson in the same class as that trio. Doug Mehus T·C 02:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, more Carlson than Limbaugh. She wants to be seen as fact-based, whereas Rush doesn't give a shit. Guy (help!) 10:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sharyl Attkisson's media bias chart (shown in the "Rating news outlets’ ideology" section of this PolitiFact fact check) rates the Associated Press (RSP entry) and Reuters (RSP entry) as left-wing sources. That's not a very credible starting point. — Newslinger talk 09:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Newslinger, it's... novel. The Adfontes Media Bias Chart conflicts with a significant proportion of her "subjective" ratings. And they publish a methodology. Guy (help!) 10:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• The current assessment of the source at WP:RSP seems fairly on-point. It is a partisan advocacy group that should be used with all the caveats we normally apply to partisan advocacy groups. Attribute their opinion, and determine WP:DUEWEIGHT based predominately on whether independent sources themselves use them as a source for the information cited. GMG^talk 00:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, The problem is, many editors don't distinguish between green- and yellow-flagged sources. I would argue that we should not rely solely on Media Matters for America for facts. It should be backed up in or by a green-flagged source. Thus, since many editors do not distinguish as you, David, and I do, I'm just asking that they be recategorized. Doug Mehus T·C 00:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, See the discussion I am currently having whereby a sentence in that article relies solely on Media Matters in estimating the number of advertisers the show apparently lost. We should be independently verifying this with primary sources or with another green-flagged source.Doug Mehus T·C 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If people ignore the instructions given, and use the list primarily as a summary judgement of black, green, yellow, and red sources, rather than a collection of subjective community assessment discussions, then the problem is not with the list, the problem is with how it is being used. We do not adjust our methodology to the lowest common denominator of users who wish to use it wrongly. The purpose of RSP is to make it easier to think about the use of sources on Wikipedia, not to remove thought from the evaluation process.

Many partisan sources are nominally reliable, but are mostly useless for determining DUEWEIGHT (which is an entirely separate issue from reliability, and not the primary purpose of RSP). If I run an advocacy group for animal abuse, then my incentive is to publicize information that supports my advocacy for animals, and ignore neutral or disconfirming information. My incentives do not align with those of more non-partisan groups, like Gallup or the Census Bureau, who would conduct research and publish the results, without the prior calculation of whether it serves some larger political purpose. GMG^talk 22:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable. They are indeed partisan and biased, but they are factual, and therefore we can use them. When in doubt, attribute the source. Use them for facts, and attribute their opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  BullRangifer, For clarity, this could include, but would not be limited to, noting their partisan affiliation either in-text or in a footnote, refactoring overly brief statements that are otherwise misleading, and the like. Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Additional considerations apply. Media Matters for America (RSP entry) is an advocacy group. The organization's exclusive focus on "conservative misinformation" puts it in partisan territory, and its statements should be attributed in-text. My main concern with MMfA's website is that it doesn't clearly label its opinion reporting. Currently, the top article on its home page, "By its own precedent, Fox should ban Joe diGenova", is opinionated but presents no indication that it is an opinion piece. That's expected for an advocacy organization, but uncommon for generally reliable news sources. MMfA is commonly compared to Media Research Center (RSP entry), as seen in a 2010 RfC. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Newslinger, Well said. I'd also add that Media Matters' name is intended to confuse the public into thinking it's some independent, neutral media watchdog like the Pew Research Centre, which is wholly and unquestionably reliable. Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Context dependent. I'd file it under: fine with WP:ATT, evaluate individually before using for statements of fact in wiki-voice. Guy (help!) 10:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Yes, I agree with that (see above); however, the problem is, like most of the public, many wiki editors on here do not have the same level of media literacy as you, I, and the participants in this discussion. That is, they rely wholly on an explicit list of reliable sources without regard to the colour shading (yellow versus green). Thus, I'm thinking, what would the harm be in redlisting or blacklisting this source a la Breitbart, InfoWars, et al.? Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are redlisted for publishing outright lies or distortions, not just because of their political bias. If we banned sources for having a strong political bias that they've worked to conceal, we would 100% have to ban eg. Fox News as well, since it has a comparable well-documented history of working in a systematic manner to advance a right-wing point of view; it was unambiguously founded for that purpose and continues to have daily memos to that effect distributed from above. But WP:RS is primarily about reliability, not bias - that is to say, the key question is whether a source, by and large, can be trusted for statements of fact, not whether it has a strong perspective or even whether it engages in advocacy. You haven't presented any evidence that MMFA is untrustworthy - a source can have an overwhelming partisan top-down mission statement, and still be reliable as long as there's no indication that that has led to them publishing distortions, untruths, or other things that would make them unreliable. EDIT: Also, you should perhaps read WP:BLUDGEON; replying to almost every post in an RFC is generally considered inappropriate. RFCs are for gathering outside opinion, not a place to argue with everyone you disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Dmehus, the fact that it is not as unreliable as either of them and its opinions are non-insane and widely quoted by third party sources. Guy (help!) 13:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Additional considerations apply I would not use labels from them without attribution or in the lead, e.g., "Example Person is a radical extremist public intellectual." I would also avoid using them as the sole source for the prevalence or fringe-ness of a particular point of view. Cheers, gnu57 14:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  As an example of how they can be dodgy in reporting points of view, compare their coverage of responses by Catholic groups to a proposed compromise during the 2012 HHS mandate controversy[119] with that of the New York Times[120]. MM entirely neglects to mention that the USCCB had taken a less-than-favourable view of the compromise; selectively quotes positive elements of the Catholic Charities USA statement[121] without including the portion "CCUSA is not prepared to endorse the accommodation"; and frames statements from the political pressure groups Catholics United and Faith in Public Life as coming from "Catholic hospitals, colleges, and charities". Cheers, gnu57 23:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, though you'd usually use inline attribution and WP:DUE is obviously a separate consideration that has to be made on a case-by-case basis. They obviously fall under WP:BIASED, but they're a reasonably high-quality source as biased sources go. For WP:USEBYOTHERS, see Fast Company, Vox, Slate, Mic, Columbia Journalism Review, Haaretz, and in-depth coverage from Rolling Stone. Some of these sources describe them as a "liberal watchdog group", but all of them nonetheless treat MMFA's statistics and reporting as reliable or relevant; that's the definition of a usable WP:BIASED source. --Aquillion (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per BullRangifer. I've seen no evidence that their reporting is inaccurate, or that their opinion[s] isn't based on fact. François Robere (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Media Matters articles should generally be considered opinion pices. To illustrate, here are some headlines on their site as of right now: "Right-wing media’s ugly and desperate smear against Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman"[122] "The New York Times is already botching impeachment. Just look at The Daily."[123] "Right-wing 'intellectuals' defend Trump: He is too inept to be impeached"[124] The words "desperate" and "botching" and the scare quotes around "intellectuals" are all statements of opinion. Yet there is nothing denoting the articles as opinion pieces. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• Regard as WP:BIASED RS, use with caution — due to political connections and mentions of left-leaning generally, plus explicit advocacy on their site. Though that’s saying facts presented are generally solid, the bias is by strongly left choices of stories and by having facts omitted. Not readily finding editorial control so not transparent, and am seeing complaints of lack of retractions where false story is quietly erased or altered without apology or admission of error. (And complaints that they highlight retractions from right, but not retractions on left.) So facts here seem citeable, but word choice and analysis are suspect and used only if other sources indicate WEIGHT and then use with attribution. They are after all a 501 progressive group dedicated to ‘correcting’ the conservative side. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Attribute all statements As GreenMeansGo and Newslinger said above, this is an advocacy organization. Its opinions may be included when they are relevant, but they should always be attributed as opinions of the organization. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Reliable. Why is this RfC even here? Gerntrash (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable The factual accuracy of their reporting has not been called into question, they may focus their reporting on certain areas, but so does nearly every source. --Jayron32 17:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Usable but too partisan to use without attribution (i.e. at least yellow if not red). I agree with GreenMeansGo and Genericusername57 and JzG (Guy), word-for-word, all of whom were more concise than I would've mustered. :-) I also agree that trying to black-list them is itself extremist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, True...I can live with them being "reliable," potentially, but I think we should require that a second source provides independent confirmation of their statements for controversial and political topics—that is, not just GQ or The New Yorker trumpeting some blog post or press release Media Matters for America (which is more or less what their "stories" are) has put out. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Failing that, if by "attribution," this includes setting off Media Matters for America in a neutral appositive that says something like, "According to Media Matters for America, a left of centre pressure group, Foo's television program lost N number of advertisers [...]," then I'd have no problem with that. Attribution is good, but their relationship is crucial and should be included in said attribution. Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Generally agreed with both of those points, other than whether to describe the attributed party in situ is a contextual decision and not a requirement (and can even introduce PoV problems and a necessity for new sources to confirm the description, if it's done clumsily). Generally a link to Media Matters for America, which describes the organization's stance-taking and PAC connections, with sources, is likely to be sufficient. We have to be careful of the WP:NOR principle of not "steering" the reader's impressions. Probably the best way to use MMfA as a source is in a comparative block of "responses" – according to left-leaning organizations like MMfA ..., and according to right-leaning ones like Cato Institute ....  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, True, but even though the Cato Institute has a an economic conservative ideology, I trust them a lot more than a PAC-linked pressure group/advocacy organization known for its so-called "black ops"-style dark influence tactics (sort of like how I'd trust Brookings Institute despite its more liberal ideology). Your description is probably better at adhering to WP:NOR. A good comparable to MMfA would be the Center for American Progress, another left-leaning advocacy group with strong partisan ties, and its Think Progress blog. Doug Mehus T·C 23:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Attribute all statements. Certainly not reliable enough to use wikipedia's voice but also not unreliable enough to blacklist. As long as its properly attributed I see no issues. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reasonably reliable, but should be taken on a case-by-case basis basically as Guy, et al. said above. They do a lot of good work, but there are definitely some claims that should be attributed, and some claims could use comparison with other sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for factual statements. Attribution should depend on context. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Sharyl Attkisson

There is an RfC at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson § RfC on self-sourcing, an issue previously discussed here. Guy (help!) 09:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiTribune

Is WikiTribune a reliable source? Example article which mentions No Platform. (Please ping when replying) —Srid^🍁 22:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, definitely not. It's WP:USERGENERATED. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable. WikiTribune is similar to Wikinews (RSP entry). Both are considered unreliable becuase they are open wikis, which consist of user-generated content. — Newslinger talk 02:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

FN P90

Seeking a review of this addition of "sources" by Icemachine79. One is to a Youtube video of copyrighted material and the other attempts to cite a particular episode as if it is a source for the claim of usage...i.e a movie prop that you see is supposed to be a source. See the talk page thread as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Copyright violation and original research. There is no indication that the YouTube (RSP entry) user named "silvercomic" had permission to publish that clip from Stargate SG-1. Links to copyright violations are prohibited under WP:COPYLINK. Even if there were no licensing issues, one instance of the FN P90 being featured on the show is not sufficient to make the claim that "The P90 was heavily featured on the Showtime (later Sci-Fi Channel) series Stargate SG-1 and its spin-off Stargate Atlantis." Drawing that conclusion from primary sources is original research. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Three sources in the Sireethorn Leearamwat article

Are conandaily.com, a Dân Việt article hosted on msn.com, and genpi.co reliable for supporting the listing of the subject's occupation as a "model" (or for supporting any factual information at all)?

These references were identified by User:Migsmigss to support the statement in the Sireethorn Leearamwat article that the subject is a model. This has been objected to by User:Evrdkmkm, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, but I agree with the objection and think it still stands. The mention of "model" in these sources (as far as I could determine, since two are not in English) is offhand, without any substantiation, and all of them seem to be derivative articles based on second-hand reporting from elsewhere. No other reliable news sources (e.g. Khaosod English) make any mention of a modelling career, and in fact make a point of explicitly discussing her being a pharmacist. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this concern, Paul_012, and for the tag. Also tagging BabbaQ.

Looking forward to this getting resolved, so we could get more informed procedure with sourcing/referencing in the future, as well as a more enlightened citation of sources not just on similar articles, but in general. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Working paper submitted to the Independent Institute for Casting couch article

Is "Conflicts of Interest in the Hollywood Film Industry: Coming to America - Tales from the Casting Couch, Gross and Net, in a Risky Business", a working paper by Thomas Borcherding and Darren Filson submitted to the Independent Institute think tank in 2000, a reliable source for the Casting couch article? — Newslinger talk 02:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The published version is at {{cite book |author1=Thomas E. Borcherding |author2=Darren Filson |editor=Michael Davis; Andrew Stark |title=Conflict of Interest in the Professions |date=2001 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-512863-5 |pages=249–276 |chapter=Conflicts of Interest in the Hollywood Film Industry: Coming to America - Tales from the Casting Couch, Gross and Net, in a Risky Business}}. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, StarryGrandma! Oxford University Press is very reputable, so the published version looks reliable to me. — Newslinger talk 06:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

RTHK for List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests

Sorry for another discussion regarding source usage for the Hong Kong protests. But do these two RTHK articles support that anti-government and pro-government protesters hurled bricks at each other and injured a 70-year-old bystander? Cleaner, 70, dies after being hit by brick and Two fight for lives after day of violence]. Thanks. feminist (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Usable. Reports from Asia Times, BBC (RSP entry), CNN (RSP entry), and Hong Kong Free Press all confirm this to some extent. In the List of November 2019 Hong Kong protests article, the RTHK pieces are currently only being used to support the text "In Sheung Shui, a violent clash erupted between anti-government and pro-government protesters", while non-government sources are cited for the description of the cleaner's death. — Newslinger talk 11:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong, Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard, Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. — Newslinger talk 11:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Usable seems unbiased coverage on this issue Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable – RTHK and HKFP are both reliable English-language Hong Kong media sources that I have referred to for many years. Citobun (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable and stop using RSN to remove source that against your POV. RTHK is only source that interviewed both police and protester. Yes sometimes they made mistake such as their documentary on "2019 Prince Edward station attack". Matthew hk (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• For the record, my position is that RTHK (and these two particular articles) is reliable for this statement. feminist (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Is France 24 a reliable source?

It is interested to see about realible source wikiPedia used. As time progress, many international news taken from France 24. Is the editors ignore that france 24 is a realiable source? Hanafi455 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

France 24 is a generally reliable source, I'd think - it's a proper news outlet with the editorial apparatus of one - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hanafi455: I've moved this discussion from WT:RSP to the reliable sources noticeboard, which receives more attention from other editors. — Newslinger talk 10:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable My understanding of France 24 is that it is in the same league as the BBC News: while it is state-owned, it is also operationally independent of the government, and it does not have any record of government interference or editorial interference. It is an independently run news agency, and should be considered on par with the Beeb for reliability. --Jayron32 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable I've seen no problems with it.I've never seen an editor argue that it shouldn't be used. It is considered to be on par with the likes of CNN in the States. petrarchan47คุก 07:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable except for editorials. I agree it is in the same league as the BBC World News (in the UK) or ABC News platforms (in Australia) as a state-owned but editorially independent new service. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable as others have mentioned is in a similiar situation to BBC News and is independent of the French government.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Which dispute is this related to? If there is none, I'd suggest closing this, applying reliable sources guideline and common sense, and moving on. Politrukki (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

People's Daily and Qiushi as opinion pieces and non CoI BLP realiable sources

The two are represented for major state-run media. I believed that they are unrealiable when it comes to report news which has high connection to Chinese state. Sometimes, Chinese state-run media may contain information about praised persons. Could we used them as opinion pieces and non CoI (non controversial) BLP realiable sources? (such as Chinese Internet personalities)Mariogoods (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the BBC unreliable for Brexit? I don't like newsmedia and am not pushing for People's Daily to be used more but I think Wikipedia is showing an inappropriate bias by separating out "enemy state" state-owned media from "friend-state" state-owned media. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure or familiar with these sources, but there is a difference between state-owned media and state-run media, and the OPs objection is not the financial backing of the organization, but rather the involvement of the machinery of state with the editorial running of the organization. The BBC is extensively insulated from the British state and the British state has no editorial control over it, despite providing it with financial backing. That may or may not be true for the sources listed above, but the OPs objection isn't who signs the checks, but who checks the news before it goes out... --Jayron32 20:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223, There are certainly many complaints about the BBC's Brexit coverage, but the BBC is generally reckoned to be one of the most reliable news sources in the world. Guy (help!) 13:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's naive to assume that liberal state owned media is not state run. Or that its bias is any less egregious. We should not be using news media as a source; but Chinese news media is not less reliable than British or Canadian news media. It's all unreliable, recentist POV garbage. Simonm223 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So only capitalist, private industry can be trusted to provide reliable sources? Based on what you wrote here, nothing you write going forward should be trusted. Everything you write should be scrutinized for bias and WP:POV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not familiar with too what extent BBC is affected by the state and how do you categorize sources with different levels of reliability on enwp. It is widely acknowledged that People's Daily is clearly biasing on politics reports related to the interests of CCP and its government. Like all other state-backed media in China, People's Daily think itself as the "mouthpiece" of CPP unabashedly. But it does not mean it is not reliable at all or should be thought to be only "opinion pieces" (actually a new concept to me, no corresponding word in Chinese). The general rule we follow in zhwp is: treating it as an RS for items is not highly controversial & politics-related; using it much more carefully otherwise and attempting to catch more sources with different opinions/stands for balance.

FYI, "Journalism must thoroughly adhere to the principle of correctly directing public opinions. Newspapers, journals, and radio and television stations of the party at all levels should be guided, and urban newspapers and magazines should also follow the principle. The party’s press and public opinion work adheres to the principle of party spirit, and the most fundamental thing is to uphold the party’s leadership over the work of public opinion. The media hosted by the party and the government is the propaganda position of the party and the government, and must be surnamed the party." (talks by CCP leader from here; Google translated with slightly manual fix) So it is reasonable to assume the reliability of such kinds of media on politics-related issues is below average. --虹易 (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting. The difference between Chinese state media and an outfit like the BBC is that the BBC has editorial and institutional independence, Chinese state endue does not. Chinese state media is in fact less reliable than most other state media, even the media of some other autocratic countries like Qatar. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct action when someone persistently adds back a deprecated source?

In this case it's the Daily Caller (on Boyfriend Loophole, see also Talk:Boyfriend Loophole), but what's the most appropriate action in the general case? (This is not intended as a user report, I'd be at WP:ANI if it were.) - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• In the general case, I'd say that the correct action is to escalate the dispute to this noticeboard, which you're doing now. — Newslinger talk 10:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • yeah, it's just unlikely to scale ... you would be unsurprised how vociferously some editors defend their Daily Mail and Sun refs, for example - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• David Gerard, Removed again and I escalated the warning. Guy (help!) 13:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• And there's another edit-warring The Sun back in on John Wark, about biographical details of a living person. Sigh - David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would help if you stopped using false claims in your edit summaries. And try flagging material for unreliable source rather than wholesale removing it first. Did you ever consider that? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no circumstance in which leaving The Sun in an article as a reference for biographical detail on a living person is acceptable. Perhaps stop working so hard to keep sources in that literally can't be trusted - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
      • That's not what the guide you link to says, as you know. False scare edit summaries and templating the regulars, neat work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
        • WP:BLP overrides even a "some editors" note in WP:DEPS. Perhaps stop working quite so hard to keep deprecated sources in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm glad you've now stopped making claims in your edit summaries which were unaware of the caveats allowed in WP:DEPS. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not usable. For this particular case, The Daily Caller (RSP entry) article "'Political Talking Points': Ernst Says Democrats Know Their Violence Against Women Bill Won’t Pass" (from Special:Diff/927050973) doesn't qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF, since the article wasn't written by Joni Ernst herself. A number of legislators have commented on due process with regard to the legislation, including Collin Peterson and Doug Collins, as described in "House votes to reauthorize Violence Against Women Act, closing 'boyfriend loophole'" from The Hill (RSP entry). Since there are more reliable sources covering the topic, The Daily Caller is not preferred here.

There are also a couple of issues with the text added in the edit. First, it's unclear whether the phrase "Critics, such as senator Joni Ernst" refers to critics of the boyfriend loophole or critics of the proposed legislation against the loophole. Second, to maintain neutrality on controversial political topics, a summary of critics' views in the lead section should also be accompanied with a summary of supporters' views. — Newslinger talk 10:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable Since information is available elsewhere in a more reliable source, we should use those sources instead. The Daily Caller has a well-documented history of falsifying and misrepresenting information deliberately, and we should be using other sources. --Jayron32 13:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If the information is available elsewhere in a more reliable source, then the citation can be replaced, but that is not what is happening. In fact, I have welcomed replacing the citation, despite my belief that the discussion leading to it being labeled a deprecated source is a farce to everyone but left-wing partisans, especially given that The Daily Beast and Huffington Post are not given the same treatment. It bears mentioning that plenty of mainstream sources have "a well-documented history of falsifying and misrepresenting information deliberately", while still being reliable sources of information. CNN's 2014 Journalist of the Year was recently stripped of the title after admitting to fabricating interviews and facts in over a dozen articles. I don't think this totally delegitimizes CNN or Der Spiegel's ability to be considered a reliable source, but it certainly contributes to a history of falsification and deliberate disinformation.

Directing me to a closed discussion is stonewalling and deliberately ignoring the arguments I've provided on the talk page.

As per the clarity of language, the legislation is cited as closing the loophole so criticizing the legislation, especially in this context is one in the same. This is mentioned explicitly in the Background section, but if you would like to add this to the header as well, that sounds good to me.

As per the the NPOV criticism, the first sentence and pretty much the entire article is a summary of the supporter's positions. I have gone to great lengths to clear up the very biased language and it is vastly improved from its original. The boyfriend loophole itself is a political position. Removing the line in question has turned a NPOV header into a strictly POV header which can only be read as advocating for the closing of the loophole. Again, if you would like to change the source, you are welcome to do so, but removing the line entirely makes it more biased, not less.Kphawkins (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• • • You could start another discussion of why the Daily Caller is a good source actually, and maybe you'll argue well enough to change consensus - but until then it's a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
      • However, Kphawkins has mad a grave error in describing WP:NPOV here; NPOV does NOT mean "all viewpoints are covered equally". Instead it means "All viewpoints are given coverage in Wikipedia commensurate to their coverage in reliable sources". If a particular viewpoint is ONLY covered in unreliable or sketchy sources, then Wikipedia should not then present such viewpoints as equally valid to those presented by reliable sources. That's a false equivalence and would be a violation of NPOV. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE for more information on why we DON'T include opposing viewpoints that have no coverage in reliable sources. So, simply put, if sources like the Daily Caller are the only source for a particular viewpoint, then Wikipedia shouldn't mention it. --Jayron32 16:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
        • You're being deliberately disingenuous and not engaging with what I said. Please address my central point, that removing the line makes the header more biased. Do you agree?Kphawkins (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
          • • I'm not being disingenuous in any way; the header is only biased if it misrepresents what reliable sources say about the subject. You have said that the text you wish to add can only be cited to an unreliable source. If the text does not represent a significant viewpoint in reliable sources, removing it does not bias the article, but adding it in contravention of what reliable sources do say DOES bias the article by over-representing a viewpoint that is not reported by reliable sources. --Jayron32 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
          • If our only evidence is the Daily Caller, we don't have evidence. Did literally no other source even mention it? - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
            • The onus isn't on me, it's on you. I provided evidence, you removed it without reason.Kphawkins (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
              • It wasn't good evidence. The source is not usable, so it doesn't have any value as evidence. Find a better source. --Jayron32 17:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
                • Again, please use common sense. The source is perfectly valid and you both know it is. You're gaming the system to remove a viewpoint instead of seeking to rectify the problem by adding a source you feel is reliable. I helped contribute to this article and you're doing nothing but make it worse. - Kphawkins (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict) No, the source isn't valid; there have been multiple Wikipedia discussions about the Daily Caller, and it has been determined that it is not to be used at Wikipedia because it is not trustworthy in any way. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources which states "The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information." So no, common sense says "don't use source we cannot trust". Also, it isn't my job to find sources for text YOU want to add. If you want to add text to a Wikipedia article, find your own sources. See WP:BURDEN which states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (first bold in original, second bold mine). If you want to contribute text to Wikipedia, it isn't other people's responsibility to verify what you add. It is only yours. --Jayron32 18:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• As others have explained, the principle of WP:DUE / WP:NPOV is that we neutrally report what reliable sources say about the topic, not that we cover it in a way that editors personally feel is fair (after all, everyone has their own personal opinions on topics like these.) If this criticism is noteworthy, WP:DUE, and significant, you should be able to find reliable sources covering. If you can't, then perhaps it simply isn't as widespread or noteworthy as you think, and, therefore, the lead more accurately summarizes mainstream coverage without it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two issues at play here... one is whether the Daily Caller is reliable for stating Senator Ernst’s opinion on legislation to close the “Boyfriend loophole”. In this context, I happen to think that it is. It is the sort of thing they would report accurately on.

That said... the other (and to my mind FAR more important) issue is whether the article should mention Senator Ernst’s opinion in the first place. Given that anything related to the second amendment is usually the subject of intense debate and reporting, one would expect that if the an opinion was considered important, it would be covered by multiple sources (with conservative sources praising it, and liberal sources disparaging it). And given that the person in question is a US Senator, we SHOULD have multiple sources to choose from.

However, we apparently don’t. If an opinion (even a Senator’s opinion) is only covered by one source, I have to question whether that opinion is considered important enough to mention... EVEN IF that one source were considered highly reliable.

This is a DUE WEIGHT issue more than a Reliability issue, but it goes to the heart of the matter. The question of whether the Daily Caller is reliable is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I would only consider the Daily Caller reliable for citing its OWN opinion and not reliably quoting the statements of others. As was noted above, the Daily Caller was deprecated for all uses for factual reporting at Wikipedia given its repeated and well-documented falsifications. On the very limited scope of citing an editorial (not factual reporting), that is on citing to its own self, that would be reliable per WP:SELFPUB only, but then the WP:UNDUE issue comes into play. --Jayron32 18:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have submitted this discussion about Boyfriend loophole to dispute resolution. - Kphawkins (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• And more The Sun fans at it - Rob Butler (rugby league)‎‎, Skibidi. More eyes welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Your attacks on those of us who are rejecting your censorship are, however, very much unwelcome. Time for you to stop, reflect and listen to what many editors are telling you about your mass edits. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  You're adding The Sun back as a source on a music video? How is that a permissible use for a deprecated source? - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  No David, I'm restoring the status quo and then finding RS which is what you should be doing rather than censoring articles based on an "information" page, i.e. not a guideline or a policy. And you should quit your attacks on other editors and your ongoing false edit summaries too. As you have been told numerous times now. And given WP:DEPS even has a section called "Acceptable uses of deprecated sources" (with which you should refamiliarise yourself), it's time for you to stop redefining Wikipedia's use of "deprecated" in this sense to your own "deprecated source, should not be used for anything" edit summary, which is absolutely untrue. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, a crappy source is a turd on the floor. Some people respond to a turd on the floor by simply cleaning it up, others by replacing it with a bunch of flowers. That's personal choice. If you feel so passionately that we should be leaving flowers instead, you have a really simple course of action open to you: take the list of turds at thesun.co.uk   and replace them with flowers. I am absolutely confident that if someone is putting serious focus on removing the crappy sources from biographies, David will be quite happy to leave them to it.

  WP:RS has been there since forever. We have never had a policy that places preserving content sourced to crappy sources over removing crappy sources. Of course we haven't, because that would be insane. Guy (help!) 16:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  I've go no issues with turds on the floor. But we don't just go through censoring Wikipedia of uncontroversial claims which are only cited to sources listed in an information page while make patently fake edit summary claims and attacks on other editors claiming they are somehow wed to The Sun as a source of information. That's what's happening here, and Gerard's absolute recalcitrance to accept that "decprecated" in this Wikipedia sense does not equate to his dicdef that he is waving around like some kind of threat in edit summaries. And he shouldn't be removing easily citable non-controversial material. I think we all know that, don't we? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Assuming everything that looks like a previous turd is a turd before sniffing it is bad policy. How does going around religiously removing every deprecated source actually help build an encyclopedia? There are an infinite number of positive things one can do here and arguing over a harmless sentence in a rugby player's bio isn't one of them. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Well indeed, and the irony is that in many of the article being purged of The Sun etc, other completely unverifiable material is being allowed to persist. Or worse, during the purge of a Sun-referenced claim, not all of the article is correctly updated, leaving fragments of unverifiable claims around which is actually creating more work for the rest of us and providing precisely zero benefit to our readers, all backed up with fake claims on edit summaries and a misrepresentation of the Wikipedia meaning of "deprecated" when it comes to deprecated sources. All by an admin. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, it's not "censorship". I wish you would not use that word, because it is almost exclusively used on Wikipedia by free-speech fundamentalists wanting to include content that large numbers of reasonable people think we should exclude.

  Deprecated means we have decided it's not appropriate without explicit consensus. And that consensus will normally be absent for biographies.

  As to removing content, I have been told, with equal force and conviction, that (a) I must remove the content supported by an unreliable source; (b) I must leave the content and add {{cn}}; (c) I must never remove the content but must instead assume responsibility for finding an alternate source. I consider the last absurd, and the other two mutually contradictory. Feel free to propose an RfC that agrees a common approach but I don't think it can fly because the answer will differ depending on the type of article and on the necessarily subjective judgment of what constitutes controversial. For example, some football fans think that names of wives and girlfriends and children are uncontroversial, whereas I tend to want a genuinely reliable source for them, due to the tendency for rumour mongering and prurient content among tabloids.

  Overall I think this is an area where reasonable people can and do differ, and it is not helped by working on the assumption that other people are not reasonable. Guy (help!) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  I completely agree wholesale with your final point. It is utterly unworkable when editors (admins in particular) choose to perpetuate false claims in edit summaries and then accuse a number of reasonable editors of unreasonably bending over backwards to preserve The Sun citations, where in reality deprecation is not black-and-white as evidenced in the very "information" page being continually referenced, and that most if not all of us are here to preserve the information being censored arbitrarily removed simply because they are only referenced by The Sun with little or no consideration of the value of such an edit to our readers. It's disruptive and should be discouraged. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but since many editors seem to forget it's policy, WP:ONUS is very clear (my bolding): While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. If someone is violating that policy, that is a form of edit warring and gaming WP:3RR, which should be reported to WP:AN3 if it becomes a persistent problem. Otherwise, anyone is free to clean up such edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  At this point, I've seen practically no evidence that the vast majority of information being removed could in any sense be considered "disputed content". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  This is a problem with your perceptions of evidence, not e.g. your edit-warring controversial information back into a BLP, that's sourced solely to The Sun, on the excuse that the guy played sports - and calling its removal "censorship". The Sun is not a source that can be treated as a source - it is equivalent to no source, or worse than no source, in that it makes material appear referenced when it's sourced to a source that literally cannot be trusted. You're fundamentally trying to relitigate the concept of deprecation of sources here, claiming "censorship" - David Gerard (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  How curious you'd never suggested in any sense at all that this was about controversial content, because you haven't addressed any of the other controversial unsourced content in any of the other articles you've torn through. And you keep making stuff up about The Sun which isn't backed up in any WP:GUIDELINE or WP:POLICY so I wish you'd stop doing that too. And you also are casting aspersions about the reasons behind why numerous editors are undoing your mass edits. That's plenty for you to stop and take stock of your approach. Particularly as you are currently an admin. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Something sourced to a deprecated source is not sourced. Feel free to address what I just said, though, instead of going off on an aggressive tangent - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, that's unfortunately a false claim as has been pointed out to you a number of times. Deprecated sources CAN be used, that's even mentioned. And I'm afraid there was no tangent. Your crusading approach, accusations and messy edits are cause for real concern, and would be from any editor, let alone an admin. We need a team of editors following your edits to restore removed material, to fix bare URLs, to fix inconsistent sourcing, etc. That's not helping Wikipedia or our readers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  You're throwing in yet another tangential non-answer here. To repeat what you didn't answer on: you edit-warred controversial information back into a BLP, that's sourced solely to The Sun, on the excuse that the guy played sports - and calling its removal "censorship". The Sun is not a source that can be treated as a source - it is equivalent to no source, or worse than no source, in that it makes material appear referenced when it's sourced to a source that literally cannot be trusted. You're fundamentally trying to relitigate the concept of deprecation of sources here, claiming "censorship". Let's start there, then once you've fully answered that we can go off on tangents - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you're the one trying to take this issue on a tangent. You are making stuff up, where in any guideline or policy does it say that The Sun "literally cannot be trusted"? Where in policy or guideline can I find it saying that when making direct quotes from people (for instance) or giving me scorelines or transfers of sportspeople from one club to another is "worse than no source"? We started way before I mentioned censorship, principally with your false edit summaries, removal of citable material, leaving articles half-arsed and then accusing other editors of somehow being "pro-The Sun". Let's start there, after all that's the problem here, not some misguided belief that removing well-known, easily citable facts from articles is a good idea. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  None of this recent subthread under my original post matters in the end. If consensus hasn't been gained for using the source in a particular manner, it stays out even before any decision on whether it is RS or not at this noticeboard. I haven't seen a link to such consensus on the talk page. Since there is a legitimate questioning of RS on a source, ONUS is perhaps the most relevant policy for guidance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hey? Suddenly you're looking for a consensus to include a source rather than exclude a source? You have it completely arse-about-face. We have never looked for a consensus to include any specific source. Thanks for your opinion though. And there has been no "legitimate questioning", just a purge based on an "information" page and loads of false claims in edit summaries. Try again. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  We have never looked for a consensus to include any specific source If this wasn't literally false, we wouldn't have deprecation of sources. In any case, WP:ONUS is policy, whether you believe it is or not - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  No, it's not false. But in any case, all I'm hoping here is that you have learnt (a) to not make false claims in edit summaries (b) to not summarily remove information that is easily citable from other sources (c) not to leave articles in a complete mess when you continue your purge (d) that you finally understand the Wikipedia sense of deprecation and (e) stop yourself from casting aspersions about long-standing editors' motivations here. If that's been achieved, then this is a success story. Otherwise we'll all have to continue to follow up each and every one of your edits in the meantime while you continue your crusade, and that is a huge waste of time. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  You're doing that "I'm suddenly going to talk about things other than what I was directly asked" thing again. I notice you still haven't addressed whether you're going to stop re-adding deprecated sources to articles, and trying to use them for controversial claims into biographies of living persons, as you in fact actually did, and edit-warred back in - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  Per WP:ADMINACCT, I hope you realise your responsibility here is to address the myriad concerns over your behaviour. I'll continue to use sources in accordance with policy and guideline and I won't be dissuaded by your false scare claims and attacks on my (and others') motivations. We'll just continue to clear up the mess you're making of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  I feel that acting opposite to the guy who literally thinks The Sun is a good source for controversial information on a BLP suggests I'm on the right track. That's one mess you're 100% personally responsible for and noticeably not going to clean up. You're throwing around TLAs, but you literally didn't understand WP:ONUS above - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  As a purported admin, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and your behaviour recently. Please provide diffs where I have said I "literally thinks The Sun is a good source for controversial information on a BLP" please. Please do that immediately. You're far from on the right track. Your disruption, accusations and dreadful editing mess your leaving all over Wikipedia is unwelcome. Not expected from a newbie, certainly not expected from a so-called admin. Stop creating a huge mess everywhere you go and stop making fake claims. Please, it's the least you can do having created so much extra work for reasonable editors. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  And by the way, at no point whatsoever have you ever made any claim that the material you are summarily removing is controversial or disputed. You are simply purging material in your own way. Trying to claim WP:ONUS applies when all you are doing is a thoughtless, messy and incorrectly summarised purge of sources, is incredible. Per WP:ADMINACCT you need to respond to questions about your actions, including the accusations about people's motivations. So, we're waiting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

And now I think this has reached new heights, e.g. this where an award given by The Sun is now being removed per Gerrard's purge on the newspaper. This clearly has nothing to do with the reliability of the source. It's obvious that a newspaper with a multi-million readership who confers a "best album" award should be able to be included in an article from the people giving that award. To lump it into the ongoing messy purge is absurd I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Good news, Andy has opened a thread at WP:AN to discuss this and the behaviour of some of those involved here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#UK newspaper sources and how to handle deprecated sources. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

OSF

I have no idea what OSF [[125]] is beyond a host to "share your research". I cannot find any clear reference to peer review (or indeed any review) rather it seems to be a place to post user generated (allbut scientific) content. Thus I am not sure if this falls into SPS or if it can even really be considered an RS (as I am not sure who can even post "studies" there).Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it's just an open hosting platform. See here where it is described as "COS has developed a variety of software tools, workflows and data storage solutions called OSF to help researchers manage, archive, discover and share research more openly." There's no vetting of information, it's just an open forum for sharing "research". By Wikipedia standards, it is not a reliable source by any measure. --Jayron32 15:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

SS, are you asking this in reference to the "A Supply and Demand Framework for YouTube Politics" paper discussed here [[126]]? As far as I can tell this is an unpublished academic paper and I'm not sure what to do with it. It covers the same area as the widely discussed Data and Society regarding influencers on Youtube [[127]]. The D&S was discussed widely in the media and in many Wikipedia articles it's discussed in a way that suggests it's a peer reviewed academic work vs the reality that it's self published. There is a related study which, like the Supply and Demand paper is from the academic space and appears to be unpublished but going through the process, "Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube" [[128]]. As a group these papers, especially the first one, have received a lot of media coverage but so far none are peer reviewed. I'm really not sure how they should be handled, especially since the 3rd seems to contradict some of the most significant conclusions of the first. Basically (and don't take this as a precise summary) the first two largely suggest that some of the right wing YT personalities act as gateways that help, with algorithms suggesting other videos, to radicalize people towards the far right/alt right. Thus we have a number of cases where Wikipedia articles say something to the effect that "A study [article subject] was identified as a gateway to [alt-right]". The latest study suggest that such a pathway doesn't really happen. Regardless, it seems that we have very limited research in the area and we've added this content mostly based on how much press it's received vs the quality/quantity of the underlying research. I would be interested in the views of others as to how this would be best handled. Springee (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In this specific instance yes, but I suspect this may well crop up again now it is out there. The last time something similar cropped up my point was "lets wait until it is published, just another (similar) host.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There are two ways to handle unpublished papers: 1) If they are "unpublished but will be published soon", wait for them to be published before adding their information to Wikipedia. WP:TND, we can wait to get it right. 2) If they are "unpublished and will never be published" then we should ignore them as though they didn't exist. They have nothing useful as a source for us, so we don't write about what they say, we just don't use the information. Either way, for the time being, we don't use the source and don't report on what it says. --Jayron32 16:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that point and certainly we shouldn't directly cite an unpublished academic paper. But what about cases where the paper is discussed by new sources? The "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube" report was self published published by a research institute. So by the "not peer reviewed" standard we shouldn't include it. However, many news outlets discussed it. Now we have this Penn State paper which, presumably, is seeking publication but currently isn't. As before we have news sources discussing it. So do we talk about it because the media is talking about it or do we wait until it's published? If the latter why would we treat it differently than the Alternative Influence paper? And yet another follow on question, assuming the Penn State paper is published would we add it's questioning of the Alternative Influence paper's conclusions to articles?

I'll offer the PragerU article as a reason why this is coming up. The 7th (and longest) paragraph in the reception section [[129]] is about the Alternative Influence finding. To some extent that makes sense since many news outlets reported on it. However, if the research is contradicted by other research (let's assume the Penn State paper is published as is) then we have a peer reviewed source that says a self published source drew the wrong conclusions. It seems like a bit of a catch 22. Springee (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No issue with using other RS that talk about it, that is what third party means.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So to follow up on that, the Alt Influence article is prominent in the PragerU article. The Penn State research (as covered in Wired) says the basic theory is wrong but doesn't say, "The Alt Influence conclusions about PragerU are wrong." Should we remove the Alt Influence material as questionable based on more recent research? Alternatively, should the Alt Influence paragraph have material added noting that the fundamental premise has been questioned by other researchers per Wired's discussion of the pre-publication research. Would we instead wait until it's published and then say the Alt Influence material is questionable and remove it? This seems like a very gray area in part because it's so recent.

I'm trying to think how it would work if this were a more stable, less poltical topic. Consider if Wikipedia was around when minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic surgery) was first being proposed. When laparoscopic surgery was first proposed it was considered unethically dangerous. The concern was the limited dexterity of the tools and limited vision would result in unreasonable risk vs open surgery. So if we had a 1960s Wikipedia article on say Appendectomy might say that laparoscopic surgery is dangerously inappropriate here because of X,Y and Z. A later paper might not specifically mention Appendectomy but says the issue X,Y and Z aren't problems because... Thus the second paper isn't about Appendectomies but it relates because it questions the conclusions used in the article. That appears to be something like what we have now (assuming the Penn State paper is published). The first paper made a big splash but the second paper questions/refutes a foundation of the conclusion reached by the first. Anyway, this is rambling but I'm interested in the best way to handle this sort of situation. Springee (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a subject for another talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a question that can reasonably fit here (is the first source still reliable if the second disputes it) or at NPOVN (how do we handle conflicting, non peer reviewed reports that have been covered in the media). Springee (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it seems to me that the only way we should link this site is if the material has been published in a peer-reviewed journal and uploaded by someone who has the necessary rights to do so. That will almost certainly cover pretty much nothing other than pre-review versions of articles, as a secondary source to back up the published version, which may well contain corrections. Guy (help!) 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I think Wired linked to that address to provide a copy of the research. Normally I agree that we don't use this sort of paper until it's part peer review. However, what about cases where it's discussed in media? Also, we widely discussed a related paper that was self published (see my questions above). Springee (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

TV news reporting vs news websites

When discussing the major news outlets, we often get to a point where someone draws a distinction between the “regular news” programming and the opinion/analysis programming. But how often do we actually cite what is broadcast on air? Seems to me that most of the contentious citations are to the various network WEBSITES and news APPs (especially the cable news websites and apps)... their PRINTED journalism, as opposed to their SPOKEN or IMAGE journalism. This is perhaps where we need to have a more focused discussion, because it is in that printed material where we really get into serious clickbait/spin territory (and they are all guilty of it). Am I on to something here? Please share your thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would rather we did not cite off air because it may not always be available.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, also there's a tendency to editorialise when citing video content. Not so bad with news because it tends to be scripted, but the whole "X did Y, source, video of X doing Y" always feels wrong. Guy (help!) 18:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Tend to (mostly) agree.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• You think the print coverage is more problematic than their broadcast coverage? That's surprising. I would say personally, regardless of what policy might technically allow, we should generally never cite broadcast coverage at all. If the content is DUE, there is going to be a better source available, and if there isn't a better source available, then it probably isn't DUE. GMG^talk 18:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do... especially news app coverage (which is essentially one big headline). CNN’s TV coverage is much better than CNN’s print coverage. Sure, both are inferior to say the coverage in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal... but That’s not what I am discussing. Blueboar (talk)

In general CNN’s print coverage is considered more reliable than their TV coverage... What gives you the impression that it isn’t? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just out of touch. I don't really know what you mean by "news app". GMG^talk 18:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you own a smart phone? Down load the Fox or CNN app (they are free)... if you do this, you will see what I mean. You get click bait headlines and cut down snippets of the latest news... and lots of ads. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't use an app, but the articles on CNN's or Fox's websites seem just like regular newspaper articles to me. Should the apps be treated differently than their websites? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well that sounds hellish. But doesn't that have more to do with the presentation than it does the source itself? Presumably you can still access the full article. How would that really be different than Facebook or Reddit, where the presentation in "the feed" might be awful, but the story itself would be the same for anyone who clicked through? GMG^talk 19:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, ha! Yes. Apps generally have more or less the same content as the website. The big difference is between websites and any media that have a significant production cost - print or broadcast, basically. That's a big part of the Daily Mail problem. The website is full of churnalism and other crap that doesn't make it into print. Although quite a lot of what does make it into print is also churnalism and other crap, but mainly produced by people who are paid a bit more and given at least some hope of writing a proper story on the per-word budget. Guy (help!) 20:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

A what? François Robere (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, A hand-held electronic device also capable of certain networked communications, m'lud. Guy (help!) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, one of those! I read something about them on the news. Looks fancy! François Robere (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I just downloaded the CNN (RSP entry) app for testing, and a spot check reveals that the articles in the app are identical to the ones on CNN's website. In my opinion, most news channels' websites tend to be more reliable than their TV broadcasts, because:

• News broadcasts are limited to the durations of their time slots, which causes details to be excluded. Articles on news websites aren't restricted to this extent: articles that are too long simply get split into multi-page articles (which generate more ad revenue).
• News channels have a limited number of time slots every day, and need to attract a high amount of attention in order to maximize ad revenue. This leads the channels to prioritize content that grabs the viewers' attention (i.e. the TV equivalent of clickbait), even if it isn't the highest-quality reporting. News websites have no limit on the amount of content they can publish, and there is plenty of room for high-quality journalism, even if they are presented alongside clickbait. Without a space constraint, websites can cater to a wider variety of audiences than TV broadcasts, instead of just the lowest common denominator.
• Breaking news tends to be less reliable, and a large portion of news broadcasts is dedicated to breaking news. News websites publish more well-researched content. Also, news websites are updated with error corrections right on the article page, while TV broadcasts only correct their most egregious mistakes in future broadcasts.

In discussions on news channels, I get the impression that many editors are judging the reliablity of the channels based on their TV broadcasts. Since the vast majority of Wikipedia citations are to website articles, not videos of TV broadcasts, it would make more sense to evaluate news channels primarily on the quality of their websites. — Newslinger talk 12:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Liveleak

• liveleak.com  

We have something over 300 citations to liveleak.com. Examples:

• Ted Nugent At various times he has labeled Clinton a "worthless bitch","Liveleak.com - Ted Nugent Goes Off On Obama And Hillary!". Liveleak.com. Retrieved May 24, 2018.
• 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting (external links under "raw audio"): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e91_1342808686&p=1 Aurora Fire Department raw audio
• Improvised explosive device The bomber will conceal explosives on and around their person, commonly using a vest (or possibly a prosthetic "Liveleak.com - DHS Warns Of Pregnant Prosthetic Belly Bombings". www.liveleak.com.)

I doubt that any of these are appropriate. It seems to me that we should probably have this on a reference revert list, and remove most if not all these links. Guy (help!) 18:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've always intuitively questioned the reliability of the copyright information at live leak. It's everywhere on free image/video searches but it still seems like a sketchy site, too sketchy for me to upload anything from it personally. GMG^talk 18:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, agreed - quite a few of the ones I am reviewing are blatant copyright violations, and others are there mainly because they have been taken down from elsewhere (e.g. for racism), which seems like a pretty good reason for looking elsewhere for a source. Guy (help!) 20:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  I can see that it could possibly be useful as an external link to primary video in the case that the content couldn't be uploaded to YouTube. As understand it YouTube disallows pretty much all violence and nudity, where there are probably some cases for our purposes where that could be educationally useful. But those are probably exceptionally rare. Even then we'd have to be able to verify the copyright status re ELNEVER. Other than that, I'm not sure why we'd use it at all as a platform for sourcing. All the legitimate secondary outlets that produce educational video content seem to all use YouTube. GMG^talk 20:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  On a related note, per this it looks like it was originally posted by the author on YouTube and ripped off on LiveLeak. So ELNEVER. The second one is by a local Colorado government agency, and Colorado is not among the US states that releases the works of local governments into the public domain...so ELNEVER. The third...well...the video is gone, but if it is truly a video by DHS, then we should upload it on Commons and link to it there instead. The LiveLink site also appears to copy the CBS text verbatim, so we're back to ELNEVER. If this is representative of our links to LiveLeak, then we should just blacklist it as a serial copyright violator and be done with it. GMG^talk 22:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, Quite a few have been removed even by LiveLeak, indicating copyright issues (the only thing on which they act, as far as I am aware, and then only in response to DMCA). I suspect you may be right. Guy (help!) 23:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• LiveLeak is at best a generally unreliable source, because it consists solely of user-generated content. As with YouTube (RSP entry), we generally don't cite an uploaded video unless we are confident that it's uploaded by a confirmed or verified account of an organization that we consider reliable, or unless the video itself is covered by independent reliable sources in a way that makes it a primary source. These cases are rare, and WP:COPYLINK still applies. — Newslinger talk 13:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Avatar317 removing WP:ABOUTSELF material

• Disclosure: I have disclosed my affiliation with Knights of Columbus and will not be editing the article directly.
• Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Avatar317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Avatar317 has been removing text from various articles and claiming that the text is inadmissible because it is WP:PRIMARY sourced. He uses this rationale for removing nothing more than a membership figure published by the Knights of Columbus, claiming that this is "promotional" material. It would seem to me that WP:ABOUTSELF applies to an org's membership numbers. Oftentimes, the organization itself is the only one that would have an accurate count of members, and so we need to trust/attribute them when citing it. I do not see a valid rationale to remove this from the article.
• 40 Days for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In the article on 40 Days for Life, Avatar317 claims that any organization that opposes abortion, and that includes any Catholic organization is not a WP:RS in his opinion. Frankly, that is a crock. I do not see how he gets away with saying such things and removing such material as has every reason to remain in articles. Elizium23 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

1) Membership numbers: As I have said on my edit summaries for 40DfL, all organizations love to inflate their membership/rally attendance/marcher numbers to sound bigger than they are. Here's a good example: American College of Pediatricians - The group was founded in 2002 and claims to have over 500 members, although independent sources have previously reported that the group has between 60 and 200 members and one employee. WithOUT an independent source, claims like these are WP:PROMOTIONAL and don't belong in Wikipedia.

2) Any organization that promotes the same cause as 40DfL is not INDEPENDENT or NEUTRAL to 40DfL. Again, as I have said on my edit summaries, see: WP:IS. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Clearly NOT the case for the FloridaCatholic and ChristianBroadcastingNetwork when they report about 40DfL. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a WP:RS is. Also you don't seem to grasp the meaning of "independent". Elizium23 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So, any Catholic source is a priori unreliable for any claim about abortion? What about Anglican sources? Presbyterian sources? The Salvation Army's position on abortion is debated, are they independent? Planned Parenthood, on their official website, makes claims about the number of clinics they operate and the number of medical affiliates they have. This is a WP:PROMOTIONAL claim, by your metrics, and should be removed from the article. Also, the sources cited on that article include such as Ellen Chesler's book "Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America". A pro-abortion source such as this is not "independent" by your metrics and is not reliable for its claims on abortion. What about media outlets with a pro-abortion stance? Surely they are not independent. Ms. Magazine comes to mind here. I'm curious what you think of these extensions of your policies. Elizium23 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The "any catholic source" issue aside, in the issue at hand, this is a lot more than just "catholic". The newspaper is an official publication of the Catholic Church, and the subject being written about is an official program of the Catholic Church. It also plainly reads like an advertisement or press release. It would be inappropriate to take any of the numbers from that article as anything more than what the Church claims to be true. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me - are you referring to 40 Days for Life, or something else? Nothing under discussion here is "an official program of the Catholic Church". Definitely not 40DFL, which is interfaith and non-denominational. There are Catholic leaders and Catholic endorsements involved, but it's fundamentally not a religious organization. So I'd humbly request that you rethink your accusations about independence of the sources. (Also the Catholic Church is... big. A newspaper in Florida is rather far removed from, say, a religious order centered in Switzerland, just to give a random example.) Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me - are you referring to the article published by Catholic officials in Florida that got its information by interviewing other Catholic officials in Florida, or something else? You also zoomed the issue of the tangible bias in the source, which is more than enough to make this editor doubt that any fact checking took place. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

40 Days for Life is based in Texas, not Florida. It does not identify as a Catholic organization, nor is it staffed by Catholic clergy or religious. The fact that Catholic officials in Florida participate in it means about as much as the fact that Catholic officials in Florida run Microsoft Windows 10. What is your point? Elizium23 (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You've basically stated the most important point. Catholic Officials participate in the movement. Read the article you are using as a source. It is literally persuasive writing - it's an advertisement for the subject. If the Florida Catholic wrote an advertisement for Windows 10 based on interviews with Catholic Officials who were participating in a Microsoft launch event, I would object to that too. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, nice straw man you have there!

It's taken me a while, but I finally realized you've veered way off from the OP I posited. Your position on Florida Catholic has very little to do with the points I raised, so why are you hammering on about these insignificant points? Elizium23 (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It's the example you used to illustrate the problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't. What gave you that idea? Elizium23 (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It is literally the only diff you provided in your original post. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, have you looked at the article? It's vile. Endless self-serving / PR claims sourced to pages like "how to describe the benefits of membership". About half the content of that article needs to go as a matter of some urgency. Guy (help!) 20:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG, no I haven't had a chance to yet. I basically stopped at the introduction and can't believe the conversation above went the way it did. If the whole article is more of the same, I will agree with you once I've gone over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, There is huge resistance on talk to even acknowledge the problem. I think once the self-sourcing is removed we'll end up fighting over whether it's appropriate to include mission statements because they are in the press release that forms the source, and how many references to the same two or three books are appropriate. It's one of those articles that would be twice as good if it were half as long, IMO. Guy (help!) 11:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

An organization that is simply pro-Catholic or anti-abortion might be citeable under WP:BIASED, with in-line attribution making their bias clear; but such sources need to be used cautiously, and one with such a clear bias could never just be stated for flat unattributed statements of fact. Citing them for statements of fact or citing massive parts of the article to them one-sidedly is clearly not acceptable, even if that's a WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:RS issue. Though, I'd also cut to the more serious point that I don't see how The Florida Catholic is an WP:RS anyway - do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I'm not seeing it. Just because an organization sets up something and calls it a newspaper doesn't make it an WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The Florida Catholic is a long-running (since 1939) regional religious newspaper with reported circulation of 138,000.[130] It merged with the bilingual Miami Voice (another established publication) in 1990. I've found their archives useful for Florida politics and history: you can see some past issues here and here. The current editorial staff are listed here. Cheers, gnu57 21:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Avatar317 that organisations cannot always be trusted to reliably report their membership. As with most things, reliable sources have ways to try and estimate a number. While RS may often just accept the figure they are provided by the organisation, good RS should assess whether the info they are being given is credibly and if they feel it may not be, either try to estimate it and report the discrepancy or at least make it clear they are only reporting what they were told and have reasons to doubt the credibility of the number. But the other thing to remember is that we don't just require reliable secondary sources for fun, but also because they help us assess significance and due weight. While membership numbers may seem a reasonably significant part of an organisation, ultimately if no RS felt it worth reporting, maybe it isn't actually that significant. Note that I have similar thoughts for stuff like Youtube viewership numbers or subscriber counts. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:ABOUTSELF is for minor and uncontested facts, not marketing claims. Membership numbers are a marketing claim. And certainly not for half the references in an entire article, as is the case here. Guy (help!) 19:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree - WP:ABOUTSELF needs to be used cautiously. These claims are both largely self-serving and make up a large part of the article, which is a problem. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• The article is bloated with trivia and outright promotion sourced to affiliated authors and publishers. There's a fine article hiding within, and the poorly sourced material should be cut out to highlight the significant facts and narratives. The good news is that this is a notable organization, so unlike some promotional articles, this one will survive in good shape after proper edits. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

NZZ as generally reliable

NZZ - add as a generally reliable source to the list per WP (especially for neutral, detailed reports on international affairs):

Neue The Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ; "New Journal of Zürich") is a Swiss, German-language daily newspaper, published by NZZ Mediengruppe in Zürich.[1] The paper was founded in 1780. It has a reputation as a high-quality newspaper and as the Swiss newspaper of record. The NZZ is known for its objectivity and detailed reports on international affairs.--Rgb128 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It would probably only be worth adding explicitly if this was coming into question - is there a discussion where someone's claiming it's unreliable? - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

About as much as any other news rag.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

See for example DISK of NZZ or comment above with "news rag" from Slatersteven.--Rgb128 (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is my opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to WP:RSP, no it should not be added unless there have been at least a couple of major discussions contesting its reliability. RSP is not intended to be an exhaustive list of reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 12:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: NZZ

Which of the following best describes the reliability of NZZ (RSP entry)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for news
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for news
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information

— --Rgb128 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey (NZZ)

• Generally reliable, but I question the need to have the vote here? Is the reliability of NZZ being widely questioned? AFAICT, it is of similar reliability to any large city mainstream newspaper in the US or UK. --Jayron32 15:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (NZZ)

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Rgb128, and thanks for bringing up these three German-language sources. Historically, editors on this noticeboard reserve formal RfCs for the most controversial discussions. This includes sources that have been repeatedly discussed, sources for which broad restrictive measures (e.g. deprecation) are proposed, and sources for which new information contrasts with longstanding consensus (e.g. the Newsweek RfC). For less controversial discussions, it's usually best not to start a formal RfC on this noticeboard, since RfCs divert attention from other tasks. You may be interested in Rosguill's proposal on regional source surveys, which would evaluate underrepresented sources (including non-English sources) in an organized way. — Newslinger talk 12:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the background information on the historical use of this noticeboard reserve. I find the list in general a good idea and would like to conduct the formal RfC because of:

• DE.WP is the second biggest/active Wikipedia
• even in German speacking countries and Europe people fight/argue nowadays about the reputation of (established) media outlets
• this RfC and the resulting listing could clarify/shorten a lot of this discussions & provide a guide which reputable sources to use for german speacking countries

Hope it is ok to run this RfC? --Rgb128 (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Unnecessary RFC Has there been any serious question as to this paper's reliability? Please link relevant talk page discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Die Welt

Add Die Welt as a generally reliable source per WP.EN and WP.DE:Die Welt. --Rgb128 (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

About as much as any other news rag.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Die Welt is at the lower end of the German quality press, but yes, for factual reporting it's generally reliable. FAZ and NZZ (above and below) are at least one rung better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Can you provide any evidence/source to substantiate your claim/statement "Die Welt is at the lower end of the German quality press"?--Rgb128 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say "it is well-known", but there are actual studies (e.g. the one referenced in http://www.bankkaufmann.com/meldung-345098.html). I've requested the full text from the author, but even the abstract/press report mention FAZ, Süddeutsche, and Zeit as the top quality newspapers, and do not mention Welt. There are not that many other quality national newspapers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

thnx for the link to an unknown blog (0 user/283 guests) talking about a survey in 2011 conducted by a college-man. Did any reputable source with a certain reach report on this survey? Are there maybe any other sources for your "this well known"? --Rgb128 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The "college-man" is now Professor for Media and Technology Management at the University of Cologne, and he earned his PhD on economic analyses of journalistic quality. I've linked to an arbitrary of the many outlets republishing the press release, as the full paper is not accessible online. It is based on a full published paper (https://elibrary.vahlen.de/10.15358/1613-0669-2011-2-22/die-journalistische-qualitaet-deutscher-tageszeitungen-ein-ranking-jahrgang-8-2011-heft-2). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the paper from the author (via ResearchGate), and it lists Die Welt as the lowest of the second rank papers, below Frankfurter Rundschau and above Die Tageszeitung. TAZ is alone on the third rank, and the 4th rank papers include Bild and Neues Deutschland, which I don't think anyone would include as "quality press". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Die Welt

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Die Welt (RSP entry)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for news
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for news
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Die Welt)

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Unnecessary RFC Has there been any serious question as to this paper's reliability? Please link relevant talk page discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

FAZ

Add Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as a generally reliable source per WP.EN and WP.DE:FAZ. --Rgb128 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

About as much as any other news rag.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is out of process, but FAZ is indeed one of the more reliable German-language newspapers, comparable to the Wall Street Journal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: FAZ

Which of the following best describes the reliability of FAZ (RSP entry)?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for news
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for news
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information

 --Rgb128 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable, but I question the need to have the vote here? Is the reliability of FAZ being widely questioned? AFAICT, it is of similar reliability to any large city mainstream newspaper in the US or UK. --Jayron32 13:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Unnecessary RFC Has there been any serious question as to this paper's reliability? Please link relevant talk page discussions - David Gerard (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

RealClear media

I'd like to understand the consensus re RealClear media, notably RealClearPolitics, which is used as a source on Lou Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's my understanding that this mixes content aggregated from other sources of varying reliability (e.g. WaPo, The Federalist and National Review), plus commentary from their own - right-leaning - staff. There ahve been examples of egregious error (e.g. [131], which repeats a false conservative talking point in respect of whistleblower reports).

I suspect this is a case where aggregated content should be cited from the original sources an original content would only really be usable in an WP:ABOUTSELF context, but I don't know. Guy (help!) 13:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi JzG, RCP does publish their own articles even though a majority of the frontpage is devoted to news aggregation. The article used on Lou Dobbs is one example of an article published by RCP. From what I can tell, the articles hosted on RCP are not copies of articles hosted elsewhere. All "outside content" is an external link and is not reproduced on RCP. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:JzG The commentary article as an opinion piece wouldn’t be used as a cite or as representative of the publication, but note that topic about what went on when is hardly clear. The RCP commentary included links to documents, including the IC IG language which explicitly is looking for first-hand information, and instructions at the time. The letter isn’t about the IC and isn’t first-hand info, yet proceeded on and then the form/instructions changed, and the commentary noted the changing rationales of the IC IG. (The fact-check article also notes it is that old form which was used in the August 12 complaint filing.). The fact-checked article has a different view - but then, the two are not using the same links, and neither is addressing the points of the other. I don’t think in any case you can get much about RCP overall based on one commentary which may have been above average versus one fact-checked article which may have been subpar for them, when the two don’t speak about each other or to the same points. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If you actually follow through the sources, specifically the DNI statement on the handling of the whistleblower report, you'll notice that RCP either totally borked their reading of the document, or they are simply lying. Either way, the fact this is neither retracted nor corrected casts a poor light on the whole outlet. Even as a "commentary", if RCP allows debunked conspiracy theories to be given a voice on their site, that's not a good sign. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Someguy1221 umm, you seem to have mistaken the ICIG for the DNI. And likewise missed that this wasn’t RCP writing, plus missed that the commentary gave more facts with links. The only thing debunked here is the notion that fact-check gave the whole story. If RCP links to reasoned commentaries showing factual info, that’s not a bad thing. They do it more than DUE would, but then again WP has the problem that most WEIGHT is in various wild and false speculations, while RCP is just looking to interest readers with a mix from many POVs rather than doing some WP policy. That gets an eclectic mix - not as varied as digg.com but same pot-luck effect. The summaries from RCP themselves of polling etcetera seem accurate and factual. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I’m not aware of the consensus mentioned. I agree RCP seems largely an aggregator, with various sources and topic areas outside politics such as Sports. The selection of topics, items, and sources seems eclectic. Where RCP is conveying factual data itself seems good, but linked items should be judged on their own credibility. There seems a mild right-lean in that selections are roughly bipartisan (or nonpartisan), which gives more prominence to small pubs and right-lean pubs than what external prominence is. publications than external prominence. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated sources discussion on WP:AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#UK_newspaper_sources_and_how_to_handle_deprecated_sources? - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire

The Daily Wire has been discussed once that I could easily find here but there were a couple saying RS, ~4 saying use with caution/partisan but reliable, and ~6 saying avoid, so no real consensus. Can we update? --valereee (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, avoid. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Wire is NOT a news reporting source... it is a news analysis, commentary and opinion source. In that context, it can be seen as a reliable PRIMARY source. In other words, it is reliable for sourcing the analysis, commentary and opinions expressed by its various commentators. Now, whether those opinions and analysis are noteworthy will depend on the topic. That is a DUE WEIGHT issue not a reliability issue. But when mentioning what someone writing for the Daily Wire says, the Wire itself is the MOST reliable source possible for that material. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that there's two important caveats. Citations like that are WP:ABOUTSELF, ie. we can cite someone for their own opinions regardless of the reliability of the source; but first, that's only usable on articles or in sections about that person - in places where that author is directly the subject of the topic. We cannot drop rando opinions from the Daily Wire into other articles just because an editor thinks that opinion is relevant, since WP:RSOPINION still requires a basic level of reliability from the source - ie. if we're going to cite someone's opinion on our article for climate change, we need a source that will do basic fact-checking to ensure they don't say anything with glaringly inaccurate assumptions in it and that their credentials will be as described. The Daily Wire doesn't provide that. Even when the writer is directly relevant, we also cannot use such cites for statements about other people, even on their own page, and would have to be cautious about shocking or exceptional things. "I think taxes are too high", coming from an American conservative commentator, could obviously be cited to their statements even in an article on an otherwise low-reliability publication. Them saying "I think climate change is bunk!" could maybe be cited there, if it's in-line with their other statements, on their article to establish their views (never on a general article about climate change, only when the author is the direct focus of the text), but for that we'd need to use some caution because saying that they hold a fringe view is potentially WP:BLP-sensitive if there's any reason to doubt it at all. Them saying "Senator Joe is a corrupt asshole who is on the take" (or making any other statements at all about a living person) could not be cited to their own statements in the Daily Wire under any circumstances, because it's a statement about a third party. (None of this has to do with the Daily Wire's reliability, though; it would be equally true if they posted it on their blog or on a verified Twitter account.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This does not look like "commentary", nor like it's "reliable".[132][133] François Robere (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

​It's probably not a good idea to take Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) at face value, since it's a self-published source that we consider generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 11:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So it is ok for BLP issues? I doubt it. 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't, but that's because of reliability and not bias, which are separate issues. (Separate-ish, I suppose, since bias can sometimes lead to unreliability. But even if we took the Media Bias / Fact Check statement at face value it wouldn't be enough on its own. The problem is that they publish misleading or inaccurate things and push fringe opinions, not why they do those things.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I would absolutely not treat The Daily Wire as generally reliable, if for no other reason that its association with shrill Ben Shapiro of Breitbart fame. On top of that, the site is very opinion oriented. It's so-called news tends to be deeply intermingled with its opinion content.[134][135][136]. How often does one see a reputable source cite something in The Daily Wire? Not often. - MrX 🖋 22:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely not generally reliable. They have a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified per Snopes, and they take a WP:FRINGE position on climate change. They also have a history of errors and inaccuracies without correction. I would only use it for narrow WP:ABOUTSELF things. --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Does WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday

This is a narrow question concerning policy. Does the automatic ban of WP:Dailymail apply to the Mail on Sunday. On a policy board, that I was guided to, the consensus was that the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday were separate newspapers with separate editorial boards. And therefore, the blanket banning of WP:Dailymail did not apply.

Clarity on this issue is important, in order to have a fair and balanced discussion of the merits of material, which an editor wishes to change in an article. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• If the only source for contentious material is the Mail on Sunday, that would make me suspect that it shouldn't be in the article. The MoS isn't the Daily Mail, but it's heavily associated with it, and more importantly regardless of this association it's (a) still a gossip-laded tabloid and (b) has been known to fabricate stories itself [137]. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• I seem to recall no it is not, but I am not sure why.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• The wording of the RFC closing statement [138] is a little ambiguous: "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist." This would on its surface appear to ban only the daily, and not the Mail on Sunday, except that the online version for the two newspapers share the same website. I don't see how this can be formally resolved without a new RFC. Meanwhile, I would ask Guest2625 once again to actively engage in the discussion s/he started on Talk:Jeffrey Epstein about the use of this specific source for the material it is being cited for. Even if there is no blanket ban on the use of the Mail on Sunday, I think it is abundantly clear that there is no consensus to use it for the material it is being cited for (which the source cited describes as "outrageous", and "rumour", concerning someone about whom "little is known"). 86.143.229.179 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• It doesn't apply, for the simple reason (which is entirely adequate just of itself) that it hasn't been decided to apply. There was an RfC, it didn't cover the MoS. There is no "ban" of the DM, there is what's in WP:DAILYMAIL and nothing more.

As to whether this should apply, then that's another question. Maybe it should. But it should be noted, as for the even-worse Mail Online, that the editorship of the MoS is different and sees itself as superior to the Mail, with reportedly some significant internal strife between the two of them. Does that make the MoS good enough to use here? You'd have to run an RfC for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Help cleaning up 'remainder' of predatory journals cited on Wikipedia

I have gone through User:JzG/Predatory and purged just about every predatory source from Wikipedia in the past 5-7 days. However, a handful of sources were cited so often that doing this all alone would be nearly impossible. There following is what 'remains' to be tackled.

'DOI' cleanup

• Canadian Center of Science and Education (search/all) ccsenet.org   {{DOI|10.5539}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• InTech Open Access Publisher (search/all) intechweb.org  , intechopen.com   {{DOI|10.5772}} Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka InTech Open (search/all) (Also a vanity press)
• Kowsar Publishing (search/all) kowsarpub.com   {{DOI|10.5812}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• Sciedu Press (search/all) sciedu.ca   {{DOI|10.5430}} Likely or proven predatory open access Y
• SciAlert.net (search/all) scialert.net   {{DOI|10.3923}} Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka Science Alert (search/all)
• Science Publications (search/all) sciencepublication.org   {{DOI|10.3844}} Likely or proven predatory open access

'URL' cleanup

• WIT Press (search/all) witpress.com   {{DOI|10.2495}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• Science Publications (search/all) thescipub.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Science Alert (search/all) scialert.net   {{DOI|10.3923}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• Science & Engineering Research Support soCiety (search/all) sersc.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka SERSC (search/all)
• Scholars Research Library (search/all) scholarsresearchlibrary.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Sai Scientific Communications (search/all) sphinxsai.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Research India Publications (search/all) ripublication.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka RIP (search/all)
• Medwell Journals (search/all) medwelljournals.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Juniper Publishers (search/all) juniperpublishers.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Bioflux Society (search/all) bioflux.com.ro   Likely or proven predatory open access
• BioInfo Publications (search/all) bioinfopublication.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Bonfring (search/all) bonfring.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Business Perspectives (search/all) businessperspectives.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Canadian Center of Science and Education (search/all) ccsenet.org   {{DOI|10.5539}} Likely or proven predatory open access
• Chitkara University Publications (search/all) chitkara.edu.in   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Cosmos Scholars Publishing House (search/all) cosmosscholars.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• CSCanada (search/all) cscanada.net   Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture (search/all)
• DEStech Publications, Inc. (search/all) destechpub.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Econjournals (search/all) econjournals.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• EuroJournals (search/all) eurojournals.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• European-American Journals (search/all) eajournals.org  , ea-journals.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
• European Center for Science Education and Research (search/all) euser.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka EUSER (search/all)
• International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (search/all) iiste.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka IISTE (search/all) · International Knowledge Sharing Platform (search/all)
• International Digital Organization for Scientific Information (search/all) idosi.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka IDOSI (search/all)
• World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (search/all) wseas.org   Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka WSEAS (search/all)

Regular 'search' cleanup

• Scientific Research Publishing (search/all) scirp.org   {{DOI|10.4236}} Likely or proven predatory open access
  • aka SCIRP (search/all)
• New World Publishing (search/all) newworldpub.com   Likely or proven predatory open access
• Infinity Press (search/all) infinitypress.info   Likely or proven predatory open access

Help would be greatly appreciated in cleaning those instances. Note that in some cases, these citations are appropriate (e.g. In biographies, where so and so served on the editorial board of a certain journal). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If you mean we're citing predatory journals to say that people have served on their editorial boards, we absolutely should not, as predatory journals are notorious for falsely claiming that prestigious academics are on their boards. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Just saying that a scalpel approach on biographies might be warranted, because many of those academics will indeed serve on the editorial board of those journals and even publish in them. This is particular true of Indian and Pakistani scholars. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether we can believe the journal's own claims that those people are serving on their editorial boards. If we have independent confirmation, then use the independent source as the source. If we don't have independent confirmation, then we can't trust it, and shouldn't cite it. Either way such a citation is unneeded, and we shouldn't cite the unreliable source. --Jayron32 13:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That mostly depends on the publisher and just exactly how dodgy they are. OMICS Publishing Group would be a no. Frontiers Media would be a yes. It's a spectrum. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not sure I'd trust Frontiers enough to extend them a particular get-out on this one. I have qualms about "well, that probably isn't nonsense" as a criterion for allowing them in - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers is crap for a variety of reasons, but they never made up editors out of nowhere the way OMICS did AFAIK. Like I said, it's a spectrum. That said, let's get back to the important things, cleaning up articles. The above selection of journals and publishers is really bottom of the barrel stuff though, so nothing much will be lost even if it'll sometimes be true that these people sit on the boards of dodgy journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I will concede Frontiers isn't as bad as them, and that their badness is on a higher and more subtle plain - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

(My opinion) Forbes is an unreliable source.

The reason why forbes is an unreliable source, because WP:QUESTIONABLE states that sources that uses opinions as sources are unreliable. Forbes shouldn’t be a deprecated source, but there are more better sources than Forbes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneciaTaylor (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Where? I can find this "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.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is already in WP:RSP - staff or print edition articles are considered RS, Forbes contributor blogs are only as good as any other self-published source - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:VPR

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#On the use of deprecated sources for a discussion on how to treat deprecated sources. Please make proposals at that location (not here), and comment on any existing proposals that others have made. --Jayron32 19:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Allsides.com a reliable source?

We use it in a number of articles[139] eg The Daily Telegraph's second paragraph in the lead says " Bias assessment platform Allsides classifies the paper as leaning right." But Media bias in the United States says "Allsides [1] ranks news sources from left to right wing from a US perspective using its own proprietary methods. [2] It does not claim accuracy. Its rankings of left or right are decided by popular vote." I've found this also[140]. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

We should find more analysis, but at a glance I'd say that we should refrain from using it, and always attribute it in a way that clearly separates it from Wikipedia's voice. --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_235#Allsides.com

Skimming the many discussions about it, they all seem to conclude it's unreliable. I agree with the other conclusion, that it's probably never due mention. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

Is this source a reliable source to support this edit?

"Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy is a bimonthly peer-reviewed academic journal. It was established in 1987 and is published by Routledge in collaboration with the Society for Social Studies of Science and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology. The journal has an online supplement, the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, which publishes critical replies to journal articles, book reviews, and article reviews, and hosts debates on social issues involving the production, organization and reception of knowledge." -- Social Epistemology (journal)

Note that there has been a strong dispute on a very similar topic at:

• Talk:Conspiracy theory#Proposed modification to opening sentences
• Talk:Philosophy of conspiracy theories
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Knuteson

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Should SERSC and IJCSI sources be cited at Talk:White-box_testing#Predatory_publishing?

Requesting a third opinion here. The first is a publisher, the second a journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Still needed btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Daily Stock Dish/DailyStockDish.com

Just a heads up on this, Daily Stock Dish has been popping up now for at least a few weeks as a Google News source.

Strangely all the articles appear to be copies of other published articles from a few weeks prior so everything is strangely reported weeks late. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

sciencedirect.com ... interscience.wiley.com ... informaworld.com

It is proposed the following URLs, with this format, be entirely expunged from Wikipedia:

• http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/ .... Special:Search (492)
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL ..... Special:Search (1,176)
• http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ ..... Special:Search (1,002)

They are already dead, and (will) have archive URLs added, or marked with a {{dead link}} if no archive available. This proposal is to delete the URL and the archive URLs - full removal of URLs but keep the citation with no URL or archive URL. The proposal is by User:Nemo_bis [141] - I am the bot operator who would do the deed but have no opinion either way. Nemo can give more details why the URL and archive URL should be deleted. Nimo if I am presenting this proposal incorrectly please add any corrections. Note there are cites in CS1|2 template, bare-link cites, and square-link cites. -- GreenC 14:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

I know this has come up before, but from what I can tell, it appears that the Southern Poverty Law Center is okay as a reliable source in some situations. However, it is also well known that the SPLC has been criticized for labeling certain groups as hate groups that they appear to dislike, with some alleging that the labels are politically of economically motivated. However, I just wanted to make sure if it is okay to use two sources that appear (at least to me) to be legitimate instead of smears likely to be questioned. I used both of these sources at Rick Tyler (white supremacist) which is about a person who claims to not be a racist, but pretty much everyone else agrees that he is.

• [142] - used to cite the American Freedom Party as "advocating for white nationalism."

• [143] - used to cite the fact that he was noticed by the SPLC and is a believer in Christian Identity.

Sorry if this discussion inconveniences anyone. I just wanted to make sure if it is okay to use these sources and whether or not I should try to find a better source in substitute of the SPLC. Consensus seems to also show that we should not label every group that is classified as a hate group by the SPLC in the lead, if I am not mistaken. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is widely respected as researchers and authorities on hate groups and their activities. I think any group labeled by them as a hate group *should* include that information in the lead as one of the significant defining aspects of their activities. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No non-MOS-prescribed content (e.g., identifying the subject of the article) automatically warrants inclusion in the lead. The lead follows the body, and what is contained in the lead is an editorial decision that has to be made on a case-by-case basis based on the content of the body as decided through the normal editorial process. GMG^talk 03:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

And more often than not, a group being a hate group *is* the most defining notable aspect about them. It motivates their activities and purpose. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• As has been discussed in the past, the SPLC is generally reliable but should be attributed. SPLC has been wrong before, and if those objecting can produce mainstream reliable sources directly addressing the SPLC as missing the mark in this particular instance, then they have a leg to stand on. If they can't then they don't. GMG^talk 03:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• The following opinion appears to go against consensus, and I strongly believe in following consensus even when I personally think it is wrong, but in my opinion the SPLC used to be generally reliable.

Sources:

• Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? --The New York Times
• Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? --Politico
• How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? --The Atlantic
• The Unlabelling of an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist' --The Atlantic
• The sad hysteria of the Southern Poverty Law Center --The Week
• The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam --John Stossel
• Poynter Institute's Retracted List of Fake News Sites Was Written by SPLC Podcast Producer: Media watchdogs should not outsource their fact-checking to the Southern Poverty Law Center. --Reason magazine

I do not want to start Yet Another Huge Discussion about things like retracting when you are shown to be wrong vs. retracting only after you lose a lawsuit, so please leave this as me expressing my opinion while acknowledging that the consensus is against me. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

And we should acknowledge that of these sources—at least some of which are obviously opinion pieces—and others touching on the same case, simply attempt to chip away at SPLC’s reputation which remains remarkably intact with the biggest accusation that they are a liberal agenda pusher. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I once gave a book by Ali to my mother as a gift. (It didn't go over well.) In both these cases we had mainstream reliable sources pushing back against the SPLC in that instance in particular. I don't believe that this gives ammunition for discrediting the SPLC on the count of every run-of-the-mill neo-fascist, unless we have specific reliable sources pushing back against them. GMG^talk 05:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

My opinion : if the SPLC is simply talking broadly about a topic related to racism but is not reaching out to call any specific existing group/person as a hate group or their other cateogorization, it is a reasonable source. I remember there was an article they did within the last year or so about the various Confederate monuments to categorize why they exist, etc, if they serve a hate-group purpose, and so on. That's fine. When SPLC is specifically writing to classify a group or person as a hate group or other categorization, that is not allowed to be used unless this is a facet noted by other RSes (which does frequently happen). We're talking in the framework of BLPSPS to a degree: we should not allow self-published material that does not necessarily have editorial standards to be used as a talking point by itself. And when it can be used, it must be used with in-text attribution. I would expect the same for any "think tank" group that is focused on a specific topic area and structured similarly to SPLC. --Masem (t) 04:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur. When I see the SPLC talking about broad trends and entire movement, in my experience they are still really really good. When I see them labeling a group or an individual as a hate group, sometimes they are obviously right and other sources (and not just sources parroting the SPLC) also call the organization a hate group. But when I see them labeling groups as hate groups simply because they nonviolently express unpopular political opinions for religious reasons, and when I see them just flat out refusing to provide a shred of evidence when challenged on dubious claims, I have to conclude that they are not a reliable source on whether an individual or an organization is a hate group or even on whether it even exists at all.

As one example, please see this report from the Iowa City Press Ciitizen:[144]

Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on the Daily Stormer website, claiming that this "book club" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as the home of the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group.

Later, facing a storm of criticism, the SPLC changed the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub’s designation to "statewide."

One small problem: The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed. And the SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year[145], ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly posting a "correction" that still insists that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level, and only posting the "correction" after there was a huge public backlash. Needless to say, there is zero evidence for the "statewide" claim either.

David Rettig, executive director of the Amana Colonies and Visitors Bureau, says that he attempted to reach out to the SPLC as soon as he learned about the map, but nobody from the civil rights organization would return his message. "It was a shock to us when we found out," he said. "We’ve checked around with the sheriff (Rob Rotter) and he indicated to me there is absolutely no hate group operating in the Amana Colonies, and he checked with his superiors in Des Moines and there are no reports … we’ve seen nothing of this, visitors or residents." Rotter backed up Rettig’s remarks" "There is no such neo-Nazi group in Iowa County." and that the SPLC was "irresponsible at best. I would hope that the SPLC is a more responsible organization than this example of their professionalism exhibits." The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong. Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, they changed the claim that this imaginary hate group is "statewide". And yet the SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll".

When you make a claim without a shred of evidence[146] other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit. GMG^talk 06:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A fancy way to say tl;dr — well, I did read. But it was for naught, I already heard about that Iowa Stormer Bookclub thing on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. Oh well! El_C 06:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Alas, brevity when discussing the SPLC is a surefire way of being accused of making everything up. Because the SPLC has so many devoted fans you need to provide not just sources but direct quotes from those sources. To do otherwise is to create an even longer thread, as every claim is challenged and has to be answered with a direct quote from a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

How to differentiate between two sources

Are "FORBES" and "FORBES MEDIA" website same or different? I checked about both on wikipedia Reliable sources noticeboard but I only found the name of "FORBES" in reliability section. Then what about "FORBES MEDIA", is that not reliable? Please anyone make this difference clear because I want to update net worth of different people. Thanks (223.230.170.254 (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

Forbes Media LLC is the official name of the company itself, and it operates multiple outlets. The website Forbes.com is the generally unreliable one, though depends on the author if it's a contributor piece, though I think you can still find legit magazine articles there. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Sir, I want to know about that this website whose link I am providing [[147]].Is the content in this Forbes profile is fully trusted and reliable? Please! let me know about this. I want to update Dr. Shamsheer Vayalil old Forbes profile with the new one(whose link I have provided above). Thank. (223.230.170.254 (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC))

BBC on some pro-MEK politicians getting paid by the group

Is this BBC article, considered reliable source for this edit? Essentially, am I to believe some American politicians are getting paid by People's Mujahedin of Iran.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)