Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 275 Archive 279 Archive 280 Archive 281 Archive 282 Archive 283 Archive 285

Can I use it - specifically this - when writing about the history of Nepali literature? Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK  14:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It's Britannica. Why couldn't you use it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, I have no idea. Are traditional encyclopedias renowned for their accuracy? Do they employ subject specific experts? How has the system changed or not, when transferring to online media? It gets a couple of things slightly inaccurate in topics I'm familiar with, but nothing egregious, just run-of-the-mill first-world people writing/summarising/generalising about third world stuff kinda things. So, I am curious whether or not this is an acceptable source. Usedtobecool TALK  15:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: It's a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, so secondary sources are preferred; see WP:PST. However, that's not say it's unreliable, merely that, where it is based on secondary sources, those are preferred. ——SN54129 15:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, yeah, ok, that helps! I wanted to use it to as a source while I go looking for a way to access books that don't seem to have google previews, or their alternatives. Seems to fit the bill. Thanks! Usedtobecool TALK  15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable, but it's a tertiary source as Serial Number 54129 mentioned, and secondary sources are preferred. Keep in mind that Encyclopædia Britannica Online now accepts changes from the general public, although Britannica says that "no revision to content can go online without careful review by Britannica's editors". You can review the article history by clicking on the "Info" button at the top-right of each article page or the "See Article History" link under the article title; diffs are provided for changes to the article body, just like in Wikipedia. For the Nepali literature article, no edits were made by non-staff contributors. I spot-checked a dozen or so articles, and found that non-staff contributions are relatively rare. An example is in the article for Germany, which contained an edit jointly authored by a staff editor named Michael Ray and an "other contributor" named Joshua Tatro; I assume that Tatro submitted the edit, which was then reviewed by Ray. — Newslinger talk 15:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    Doug Weller's example below is concerning, and I would be cautious of any content submitted by non-staff contributors; without adequate editorial oversight, these submissions would be user-generated content. Fortunately, the article history allows anyone to determine the provenance of every word in every Encyclopædia Britannica Online article. Non-staff contributions are only in a small proportion of EB Online's articles, and even in those articles, you can look in the page history to find a version that is solely written by staff editors. — Newslinger talk 10:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider a specialist source: I have personally encountered various errors in print editions of Encyclopedia Brittanica over the years, and I therefore recommend proceeding with caution. Not only is it a tertiary source, but it is a non-specialist tertiary source. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree! I haven't vetted recent editions, but I have spotted occassional howlers in the 1911 edition. But then, I see occassional howlers in articles in respected newspapers. If you can only find support for a fact in a single source, proceed with caution. - Donald Albury 18:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • While technically reliable, you should use secondary sources, not tertiary ones. If EB and another source differ, then there is no way of determining which is correct. But if you use peer-reviewed sources, then you can trace claims to footnotes. TFD (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nitpicking about the difference between secondary and tertiary sources is moot. When writing an article, they are both perfectly usable and almost always interchangeable so long as there is no reason to question their reliability. GMGtalk 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable tertiary sources are acceptable as per WP:PSTS which does not rule out tertiary sources as implied above, and Brittanica has a very good reputation despite the odd mistake which happens in all publications, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Brittanica, especially the 1911, was very erratic indeed in covering Asiatic topics. At that time in England, very few people were studying Nepali literature at all, so I would not trust their level of peer review. And for anything involving Asia, including historical and well as current topics, I would always watch out for their bias, which is sometimes really blatant. As for the later editions, I think superficial may be more appropriate than biased , as they progressively dumbed down the content until it eventually became no better that WP. I'd be on the watch not for plain errors of fact, but the omission of qualifiers and anything they consider minor--their express goal was to create a synthesis. The usual way of proceeding in creating a synthesis anywhere is to omit anything that doesn't fit. re is no way to creaet a synthesis and have it truly NPOV, even for experts. The best that can be done is one particular expert's POV. Truly reliable summaries give the limitations of the analysis and the range of error; academic works are usually very exact in the statement of what they do and do not take into account, and list the authors they do not agree with. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it goes fairly well without saying that any 108 year-old source should need to be treated with all the considerations of a 108 year-old source. GMGtalk 14:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
For that matter, I would not take at face value any publisher's statement that "no revision to content can go online without careful review by [their] editors" -- . It's like saying for a patrolled topic in WP, it's reliable because an experienced editor reviewed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
@DGG: I can give you an example where a globally blocked sockpuppet here managed to get his fringe views into Britannica. The sockmaster Relpmek Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Relpmek/Archive has repeatedly tried to get his fringe views into Wikipedia.[1], discussion of his fringe material is here. He persuaded the Britannica to add it to their article on Mona Lisa. See the article [p here] and click on its history, which says :Revised to say that the memory of Leonardo's mother, Caterina, may have been the source for the woman in the Mona Lisa.Naomi BlumbergRoni Kempler] I tried to contact her and failed, maybe I should try and contact someone else. We still ocassionaly get editors/socks trying to insert it. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
This make me doubly unsure, the fact that a banned user (here) added it or the fact that we refused to allow an theory apparently held by Freud.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Note the existing RSP entry for Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online), linking to many previous discussions. I think the current summary there captures it quite well: "a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but with additional considerations in case of user-submitted content.
Also see WP:EBE for awareness (although such a list could be compiled for basically every RS).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable unless contradicted by a better source If there is something in there that appears to be contradicted by a more in-depth secondary source, I would say use the latter and ignore Britannica. This is better than including content from both and letting our article apparently contradict itself, or engaging in OR by explicitly contrasting the two sources in the article space. That being said, in this particular case the article is incredibly short (only nine sentences on "Nepali", as opposed to Nepalese, literature), so if there is any trouble finding superior secondary sources (in, say, a university library or journal database) that explicitly agree with the Britannica article (and so could be used instead of or in conjunction with the Britannica article) I would say there's no need to include the content anywhere on Wikipedia. It's essentially just a list of five authors, rough dates of their productive periods, their genres, and their themes, so unless the plan is to throw out our current Nepali literature article and use the content of Britannica as a jumping off point for a new article, I don't see much their worth taking. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

What is an "official" statement by a company?

Question: All else being equal, is a verbal statement by a CEO mere speculation but not official, while the same statement on the company's website is official and therefore a reliable source?
1. Source. [2][3][4][5][6][7]
2. Article. BMW M3
3. Content. BMW have announced that an M3 version of the G20 3 Series is due to begin production in late 2020, powered by the BMW S58 turbocharged straight-six engine that debuted in the F97 X3 M. All-wheel drive (xDrive) has been announced as being optional on the G80 M3, which would represent the first time that an M3 has used a drivetrain layout other than rear-wheel drive.}} [8].

  • This instance is about a future product, but the question could apply equally to any fact about a company or organization, past or present activity, or future plans. Questions about the crystal ball policy have been discussed elsewhere. This reliable sources question is, is it "unofficial" when the CEO or other authority says it, and "official" when it's on the company website? We never got a clear answer on the BMW M3 thread below because a lot of side issues came into play. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Something seems wrong when we are considering making whatever the webmaster decides to put on the website more "official" than the CEO. I think this is best decided by the nature of the statement. Elon Musk standing in front of a shareholder's meeting and announcing a new flamethrower is a bit different from Elon Musk saying the same thing on the Howard Stern show. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • When in doubt, attribute. Say exactly who said it, and when they said it, in the text. Saying "CEO John Doe, speaking at Event XXXX, stated on Septembruary 32, that yada yada yada" in the text itself removes any problems. Again, when there is something where we question the reliability of the content of something someone said, but it is still considered notable that they said it, directly attribute and avoid speaking in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 16:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
So are you saying that if a CEO says it in a public speech, and multiple reliable sources report they said it, that is more questionable than if it appeared on the company website? Or should either be attributed the same regardless of which medium the information came to us? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is that when there are people questioning whether or not a person's statements are reliable, change the Wikipedia article to say that the person said the statement. If you do that, there are no issues with reliability. I have no particular opinion over this specific statement and whether or not it is true or not. I am only giving advice on how to make fix such situations so as to remove questions of reliability. --Jayron32 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I would not assume that a statement on a corporate website is necessarily an authoritative statement from the company. While this may be true, it is also possible that the website statement was prepared at a low level by someone who is not fully aware of corporate policy, or that the statement is old and was never properly updated. SEC filings and corporate press releases generally are authoritative corporate statements. A CEO statement intended for public consumption ordinarily would also be considered authoritative, more so than a website statement, but not necessarily to the same degree as an SEC filing or a corporate press release. John M Baker (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  3. "She completed the requirements by the Ministry of Education for the “Intermediate Examination in Arts and Crafts” (1948) and “Examination in Illustration” (1950) and the “National Diploma In Design” (1950)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantHyssop (talkcontribs) 03:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Unreliable. The about page of "Who's Who Lifetime Achievement" provides no information on the site's ownership or staff. All pages are anonymously authored. There is no indication that the site is related to any other Who's Who publication. Therefore, we treat this site as a self-published source, which should never be used for content on living people (unless they wrote it themselves, with restrictions). — Newslinger talk 09:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per Newslinger, provenance of the site is unclear. --Jayron32 13:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
      • There is more information here which shows an experienced staff, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
        "Who's Who Lifetime Achievement" is a WordPress blog with one author, named "Who's Who Site Administrator". The page you linked shows all of the blog posts published by "Who's Who Site Administrator", which makes it a listing of all of the posts on the site. (Note the "Older posts" button at the bottom-left.) It's not a staff list, as far as I can see. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clearing that up, in that case it is unreliable as a blog without any evidence to make an exception from the usual deprecation of blog sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. No evidence it's associate with the possibly-maybe-perhaps notable Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. Guy (help!) 23:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Fine's book When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans

There was an interesting discussion here.
The book is hevilly critisised in Croatian historiography, it's according to Budak and Vdović;

Fineova knjiga ne može ni na koji način zaslužiti pozitivnu ocjenu. Fine's book cannot in any way merit a positive review.
Bilo bi hvalevrijedno kada bi autor, upozoren na sve ove nedostatke, a pogotovo na stav prema Hrvatima i svoju neprikladnu metodologiju, našao snage javno se ograditi od ove knjige. It would be commendable if the author, alert to all these shortcomings, and especially to his attitude towards the Croats and his inappropriate methodology, found strength to publicly distance himself from this book.
Vođen svojom nacionalističkom predrasudom, Fine je odlučio iskritizirati nekoliko hrvatskih historičarki i historičara, kao netko tko je „nepristran“, međutim, on to nije Driven by his nationalist prejudice, Fine decided to criticize several Croatian historians and historians as someone who is 'impartial', however, he is not.
Zato i jest neobično što Fine olako donosi zaključke koji su gotovo nedokazivi, ali i sasvim nelogični. That's why it unusual that Fine easily reaches conclusions that are almost undetectable, but also completely illogical.
Očigledno je negiranje hrvatskog imena kao nečega što je konstruirao nacionalizam. It is obvious denial of the Croatian name as something constructed by nationalism.

Should it be granted label as unreliable source? I think it should. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are also chapter summaries: --Čeha (razgovor) 01:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Editor Ceha explained everything and put links as proof. I expect more editors to get involved in the discussion. I will give a critique from my point of view, that is with concrete data. Claim from the book "Such people, connected only by living in or serving the same country, may be Croats in geographical or political terms, but not in ethnic terms." We have Turkish documents and sources that mentione Croats primarily census of Bosnian army(1526) where for good part of Bosnian army is said that they are Croats i.e. behind their Muslim names are term "Croat"(same exist and in Southern Serbia, Podrinje( border between Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro), Central Montenegro) Does this mean that there was some geographical and political Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats? When a Byzantine source calls the ruler of Duklja(Montenegro) Mihailo Vojislavljević (fl. 1050–d. 1081) the ruler of those who call themselves Croats, does that mean that Duklja(at that time) is geographically and politically Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats? If we have Croatian ethnonyms throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina(eastern herzegovina) and Montenegro(14th and 15th century) Does that mean that these ethnonyms are there because of political and geographical Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats?. We have a journey of Evliya Çelebi through Montenegro and in central Montenegro (Niksic area) finds villages in which Croats live. Does that mean that these Croats are there because of political and geographical Croatia or maybe there live ethnic Croats? It is also interesting that census of the Bosnian army(1526) i.e. Turkish administration also record some Croats in Niksić.Mikola22 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Ceha, John A. Fine is a well-regarded author about medieval Balkans and one of the most quoted author, if not the most quoted, about the medieval history of Bosnia. Mhare (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Even a good author can write a bad book. Read the critics, what have he done. As for quotes, if he represents nationalistic views, can you gues which nation like's him? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Ceha, I am not sure you understand the concept of what is an unreliable source. His literature is peer-reviewed and accepted by mainstream historians worldwide. If you can't wrap your head around it, I am so sorry. Mhare (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
His sources might be, but his conclusions are not. If you read the critisism... than you'll find that he doesn't recognise tradicional historiography. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
There are more examples(Croats in wider area) but I won't list them now. The point is that John_Van_Antwerp_Fine_Jr. does not use all historical and others informations which exists (about Croats) in this area, and if he used that informations he would certainly not make such conclusions and wrote such book which is actually worthless. Croats in Croatia are probably "Croats" since the first censuses, but even then it is not excluded that they declared themselves as "Croats" because they live in Croatia. A really bad book, there were all kinds of books but I haven't read one like this before.Mikola22 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Review of Adrian Mandzy(part)[1] in which he says I quote: "Does the author deny Croatians a national and historic identity. Yes and No." Therefore if all the records that mentione Croats and Croatia, all ethnonyms and toponyms were included in his book then the picture would be much different. And if various historians who commented that book were aware of this historical data and criticism would be more negative than it is now.[2]Mikola22 (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
What a blatant fraud! What is really said in this review of Mandzy? "The work is exhaustive and well researched." "Of special note is the attention Fine pays to the historiography of the Balkans and Croatian identity." "Fine's work is a solid body of research that provides a plethora of information. Like the author's previous works on the region, this work is destined to come a much cited and recognized authoritative tome in American Balkan research."--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes "The work is exhaustive and well researched.". for that reason you find information that I provided about Croats (that area). There should be no problem because book deals with Croats and that informations are certainly in the book.Mikola22 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Quote of Josip Vdović: "On trail of his definition of ethnicity, Fine argued that ethnic sentiment was tied to national borders. At the time of the emergence and existence of the Croatian state, during the period from the 7th to the 12th centuries, there were no ethnic Croats but only political Croats. These would be people who lived in the area of Croatian states and who were subject to the rule of the Croatian king. They called themselves Croats as long as they lived in the borders of the Croatian state, that is, until 1102. When the Hungarian ruler conquered Croatia, the same Croats became Hugarians, because then they became subjects of the Hungarian king and inhabitants of the Hungarian state.(page 62)" Now I will show how it really was in example of Dubrovnik. Arab geographer, cartographer and travel writer Muhammad Al-Idrisi (1099-1164) mentions Dubrovnik as the last city in Croatia. Participants in Parliament in the Swiss city of Basel 1433 mentione Dubrovnik which is city in Croatia. 1486-1487 - German nobleman and pilgrim from Constance (region of Bavaria) Conrad von Grünenberg: "Ragusa hobstat in kunglich Croatie" or "Dubrovnik is the capital of the Croatian Kingdom". 1506 - English travel writer and pilgrim Richard Guylford writes describing Dubrovnik (in Old English): "the moste stronge and myghty Towne [...] in the Coutre of Slauanye or Dalmacie and in the Prouynce of the Royalme of Croacie"). Sokollu Mehmed Pasha 1566 issued an order in which he says that roman friars of Buda, Timișoara and Dubrovnik and of all Croatian nation do not ask for charity if these people(Croats)belongs to the Greek Patriarch(orthodox Croats) Here is an example of transformation of Croats and Croatia into Hungarians. And this is without Croatian ethnonyms in outback of Dubrovnik. Thanks for applause. Mikola22 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Reviewed by, Emily Greble Balić Fine is aware that his argument will provoke controversy in the western Balkans, but he is content to let his documents speak for themselves. In an almost encyclopedic style, he systematically reviews sources region by region and century by century[3]We see how much of my previous historical information he included in his encyclopedian book. I don't know if today hundred thousands of peoples with surname Horvat (Croat) have been included in this encyclopedian book(who now living in Hungary, Austria, Slovenia) it is very likely that they are Hungarians escaping from Croatia and Bosnia from Turks. Ethnonym Horvat(Croat) occurs in Zagreb just in Turkish times and indicate peoples from old Croatia i.e. Dalmatia. Some of the settlers (ordinary peasants) in the vicinity of Bihać(Bosnian Krajina) in Turkish times, were recorded in books as Croats i.e. that they come from Croats(Dalmatia). When Evliya Çelebi goes through "Turkish" Dalmatia he mainly sees Croats some Uskoks and Montenegrins and that's it but where are Hungarians?Mikola22 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Mikola22, you will do this with any source that might come that does not correspond with your POV. This is why you started this, and along with Ceha, and ended up in couple of noticeboards in the span of a few days. Putting Chronicle of the priest of Duklja above RS which is Fine was uncalled for, to say the least. Colleagues below have made a good point, and you just continue with quotations and your analysis of Primary sources. Disappointing, to say the least. Mhare (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
This is wikipedia and if exist possibility that someone help why not use it in good faith. I do not comment you or anyone else, Otherwise I do not know why there is so much need to comment me or someone else. I guess you came here to comment book and not me.Mikola22 (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Mikola22, try to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Best regards. Mhare (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mikola22: I am not quite sure what your point is. Actually, I am not quite sure I understand what you write. But if your point is to "prove" that Fine is unreliable with your analysis of primary sources as "proof", then forget it, and please read and try to understand WP:RSPRIMARY. --T*U (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@TU-nor:These are some data that exist and if it said that Croats are becoming someone else when political power is changes why not use as evidence and this historical information that exists in various books, scientific papers, archives, toponymys, ethnonymys, Croatian emigrants etc. Therefore if I know this information and there is more of them (how many historical data I haven't seen yet: court archive, history of Croatian names and surnames, church archive, travel writers, Turkish sources etc). Therefore if someone writing a book about Croatia which is supposedly similar to "encyclopedia" then you go to Croatia and research that data or online but you have to take all historical information if you have such big claims and theses. If anything it would be at least decent behavior to do so. Problem is that people from outside do not know Croatian history as a whole and then comes books like this which is RS on wikipedia.Mikola22 (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mikola22: (For your information, your ping did not work. The ping template only works when it is saved in the same edit as your signature. If you want to add a ping afterwards, you need to re-sign your entry.)
I just repeat: WP:RSPRIMARY, not to mention WP:OR. --T*U (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Example - Fine: "Thus, the Slavs living in and around Dubrovnik had acquired no special name to define themselves. Moreover, the town’s hinterland was generally referred to as “Sclavonia." page 96. I have previously provided information for Dubrovnik that mentions Croatia and Croatian peoples. Here are and concrete data (ethnonyms). Personal name Hrvatin (since 1301), Hrvajin (since 1475), Hrvo (since 1475), Hrvoje (since 1475) and Hrvat (Croat) (since 1475) in the Middle Ages we find all over eastern Herzegovina(Dubrovnik hinterland): from Bisće near Mostar, through Zažablje, Popovo, Vrhi and Trebinje to Biograd near Nevesinje, Stolac and Plane near Bileća. In Dubrovnik personal name Hrvatin has been mentioned since at least 1281, and later on Peljesac (1301) and Konavle (1397). Romani people from Dubrovnik hinterland: Croutatin (Hrvatin) Dimitrouich, 1423. god, otac(father) Dmithar, Radossauus Cheruatinouich (Hrvatinović), 1458. god, otac(father) Croutatin. In the archives of the Republic of Dubrovnik from the 15th century, the Romani people mostly are listed as Zingano, Zingani, Zinganus, Cingalus, Cinganus and several exceptions that list them as Jeđupe. Obviously Croatian name and surname are taken somewhere in the hinterland of Dubrovnik where they lived with Croats. Peter Tolstoy(1697-1698) Russian travel writer: "Around this monastery live Ragusans(residents of Dubrovnik) - naval captains, sailors and astronomers (...) all speak Slavic languages, and Italian know, all are called Hervati(Croats), they are Catholics". The Senate of the Republic of Dubrovnik(1745) looking for soldiers: "Let us know also whether we can get the barbarbants and in what number, but that they are Croats with our language and Catholics (Crouati de nostra lingua e cattolici)". Roger Joseph Boscovich from Dubrovnik: "In a letter to his brother from 1757, he describes this encounter and remarks at the end of the letter: "Eviva Haddick e i nostri Croati!", meaning "Long life to Haddick and to our Croats!", While living in Paris and attending to a military parade where he saw a Croatian unit from Ragusa(Dubrovnik), his words were: "there are my brave Croats". In these sources Slavs are not mentioned in the area of Dubrovnik. When ethnonym and other data is not used then we have a book like this or RS.Mikola22 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is exactly the author from outside of the ethno-nationalistic Balkan bubble we are looking for. His credentials look solid, so there is no reason to exclude his POV. Is there any damning review in a well regarded mainstream journal (preferably published outside of the Balkans) to push his POV in the fringe territory? Pavlor (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
How? The guy is accused of heavy nationalism Driven by his nationalist prejudice, Fine decided to criticize several Croatian historians and historians as someone who is 'impartial', however, he is not. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments - (without going into questionable motives of this RSN) this is nothing that we haven't seen before, it's a same diatribe that we have witnessed from Serbian critics and few outside defenders of Serbian myths and perspectives surrounding Malcolm's works on Bosnia and Kosovo - only this time on the part of Croatian discourse, on another western scholar, and this time with far lesser intensity. Even Neven Budaks review is mixed, not entirely negative, while this other person is unknown Croatian undergraduate(?) who wrote one text published in "Magazine of the undergraduates of histories - Rostra", in Zadar, Croatia. Just like in case of Malcolm, where not all Serbian reviewers gave negative critique, in this case too, other Croatian reviewers were far more favorable regarding this particular book, like Emily Balić for instance: "(o)ne of the book's great strengths is Fine's analysis of premodern "ethnic" identity". Editor who finds one, in the words of previous commenter, damning review in mainstream international publication, because I can't offer him/her million bucks, they will get my full and unconditional support on this.--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
How is Josip Vdović undergraduate student? ?
As for the Budak, how can this: It would be commendable if the author, alert to all these shortcomings, and especially to his attitude towards the Croats and his inappropriate methodology, found strength to publicly distance himself from this book. be mixed? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ceha: According to his own description at, Vdović took his Master degree in 2018, so Yes, he will have been an undergraduate when he wrote his piece in the Zadar student magazine Rostra in 2016. --T*U (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Fine is a respected scholar, a deep connoisseur of Balkan history. For example, Paul Stephenson, Professor of History [9], rated him higher than Barford, P. M.: "For historical introductions to the Southern and Eastern Slavs, I would continue to recommend Fine's Early Medieval Balkans and Franklin's and Shepard's Emergence of Rus, neither of which is superseded for classroom use by this book."[10]. The rude attacks on him by some Croatian historians should make these historians themselves doubtful.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Have you read the Fine's book? His book is going against mainstream historiography of that area.
He even suggested to rename mediaval Croatian state to Velebita, because not everbody in it were Croats. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
"Third party RS" is explained here → WP:PUBLISHED--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fine is ... completely fine. He is a highly respected scholar, writing in his field of expertise, and published by a renowned University publishing press. Most reviews have praised the work, often profusely. Some reviews have had a few critical remarks, which is as it should be. No doubt Fine's book can be used as a central source in the relevant articles. Whether or not critical comments will be relevant to mention, will depend on the context and will, of course, have to be evaluated separately according to WP:RS. --T*U (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Expect his books goes against tradicional historiography, and is critisied as It is obvious denial of the Croatian name as something constructed by nationalism. ?
@Ceha: As I just said, critical comments have to be evaluated separately according to WP:RS. The student magazine your quote comes from is hardly a RS. --T*U (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Which student magazine? Hrčak is not a student magazine. Vdović article contains analyses Fine, by providing statments from Džino, Budan, Ančić which are contrary Fine. Budak writes his own critique. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ceha: I am talking about this student magazine, where Vdović's article was published. This may actually also say something about the reliablilty of Hrcak sources. --T*U (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hrčak isn't a magazine, nor journal, it's a platform which publishes all kind of stuff, and where you can fine papers that were never peer-reviewed - it's not RS on its own merit, only if paper is obviously written by well-known and credible scholar that it's acceptable when published by Hrčak.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
And Budak and mentioned historians are no ones? Right. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I am both baffled and amused by the suggestion that it is wrong to go against traditional historiography. Huh. Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
You missed the point. Just because something is new, doesn't meet it's valid or should be accepted. To make situation more clearer change the word traditional to mainstream. Fine isn't mainstrem. And the critisism explains that. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid that the assertion that John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. is not a mainstream historian points to the futility of further discussion of the matter. Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not about users, it is about the book. Can people please stop making personal comments about users?Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fine is indeed fine. I would much rather trust a Harvard University graduate employed by one of the leading research universities in the US than virtually any historian from post-Yugoslav countries, thank you very much. As for the book itself, here is a review from an MIT Press-published journal. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
But his approach is refreshingly new.
His blatant hostility toward Croat nationalists seriously detracts from the book's laudable empirical contribution.
And that should be a positive review? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course. A refreshingly new approach is obviously appreciated in academia, including the reviewer (cue the word "refreshingly"). That is how academic disciplines move forward, so that we do not forever regurgitate 19th-century historians. The need to explain this is, frankly, stupefying. And yes, the sentence you quoted is part of a positive review. Even though it is essentially adverse criticism, it still points to "the book's laudable empirical contribution". Surtsicna (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Than it's not a positive, than a mixed review. Would you recommened the book that has laudable empirical contribution, except in some areas, where it seriously detracts from it?
Would you warn people about those areas, or would you just tell them that the book is fine?--Čeha (razgovor) 12:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not mixed. It's an overtly positive review. Critics criticize. It is not normal in the Western world for a peer review to contain only praise no matter how good the work is. I would recommend this book in articles that deal with medieval and early modern history of the Republic of Croatia. That is what the book is about, and that is where the author's expertise lies. I would not necessarily recommend it in an article about Franjo Tuđman. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's interesting. I would not recommend to no one the book which states that medieval England should be renamed Pennyland (by the Pennines mountains) just because all of the people were not English at the medieval times. Fine critics are not just sideways, he is biased.
He has listed a good number of sorces in his book, but because of his POV, his conslusions are...
Have you read the critics? How bad can a book be if a prominent historian who is famous for his untinationalistic stances asks Fine to publicly distance himself from this book? --Čeha (razgovor) 15:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Fine is fine (more or less).This is Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Čeha: @Sadko: This is why I like having Wikipedia articles about books themselves written, based on the book reviews. Various published books have at least two independent secondary source book reviews, and those can tell the readers about the book's reputation. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


Omigosh, are and reliable?

I am wondering whether these two sites are reliable enough for use in our media articles. Both appear to have editorial oversight, are not user-generated (though they apparently hire freelancers to supplement their own staff), are not sponsored content, are not self-published. They are not, however listed in WP:FILM/R. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Both look poor: churnalism and gossip. Note that uses a lot of freelancers, and lists some as part of their "team" along with three freelance coordinators. --Ronz (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Is the Connecticut Department of Insurance a primary or secondary source on the finances of the Knights of Columbus?

There seems to be some disagrement over whether this is a WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source on the Knights of Colombus' finances. Prior discussion here, in the broader context of trying to clean up that article to rely less on primary sources. My assertion is that it's essentially an official record and therefore a primary source in this context. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

CT DoI Examination Reports are undoubtedly primary documents but this source may well serve instead, depending on what the report was used to cite. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that the report is a primary source... however, it is also (in the right context) a VERY reliable source. Use... but use with caution. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • According to the description laid out in WP:Secondary, it would be a secondary source in that it "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources .... [that] rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." Reading the document, it outlines the scope and process of examining and evaluating materials submitted by the order on page 1, those materials being the primary sources evaluated by the commission. It describes and reproduces the relevant information synthesized from those documents, and then goes further on page 14 to state its conclusions and recommendations. I can understand why this could be construed as a primary source, since it's issued by a governmental agency in the course of its duties, but by the definition given in WP:Primary it's a secondary source. In the same way that WP can use census data compiled and analyzed by the Census Bureau but we cannot use the raw census information by itself, I think this could certainly be used as a WP:RS. Even were it a primary source, it could be used for certain information according to WP policy and guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Obviously primary. Also, in context, it is used to support numbers that serve to promote the subject. If nobody other than the reporting agency has mentioned these numbers, they fail WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on why it is obvious? Because reading WP:Primary I don't see how it fits the bill. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to chime in here since I already commented on the article talk page, but if JzG is going to comment here then I will as well. I believe it to be secondary per Tom Reedy. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Connecticut comment. I live in the Constitution State, and I have worked with public policy makers here. The Connecticut Department of Insurance is a regulatory agency. I have no clue what claim their report is being used to support, but whatever it is Wikipedia editors should absolutely be made aware that this is an administrative determination and should be be treated no differently that a court document (thus a primary source). Anyone who has read up to page 5 would understand this because the report is just a administrative review of the KoC's finances based off their internal records (including independent audits). I hope that helps, Aquillion! –MJLTalk 22:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"the report is just a administrative review of the KoC's finances based off their internal records (including independent audits)". The way I read WP:Primary and WP:Secondary, the internal records and independent audits would be the primary sources from which the agency made its analysis, evaluation, and interpretation. Tom Reedy (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Primary It's similar to an audit opinion where an investigator examines records, interviews witnesses and seeks third party confirmation of published accounts then determines the degree of their accuracy. It could also be compared to a scientist conducting experiments and reporting on the results. A secondary source would be a news article reporting the findings. I think in terms of using the report, it is similar to court and legal records. Unless they are reported elsewhere, they lack weight. TFD (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Primary A secondary source would provide context and significance and interpretation of this. As a report of a government agency, this is a primary source that needs secondary sources to provide that context. Scrupulously reliable, but would need secondary source support to provide context and significance. --Jayron32 14:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Primary. It's an "official record", which is listed as an example of a primary source in WP:NOR#cite_note-7. Documents aren't necessarily secondary sources just because they examine other primary sources. For example, we wouldn't consider a court decision a secondary source, even if other documents were examined during the trial. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, with these examples I can finally understand why this can be construed as a primary source, and I will change my opinion. Apparently, like the definition of fringe, Wikipedia has its own definition of a word that differs from its ordinary, prosaic use in the RW. However, if we accept all of those as examples of primary sources, Wikipedia is rife with the use of them in almost every article, and the policy needs ot be reevaluated. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Not really. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a primary source in a Wikipedia article, excepting that 1) such sources are usually not useful for establishing notability, 2) such sources should not be used to verify content they don't directly contain and 3) such sources often cannot establish their own significance to the narrative of the article. Which is to say simply that primary sources can be used to establish things like what and where and when and who, but not how and why. The problem with primary sources is that people often want to use them to draw conclusions for things they don't support. For example, lets say someone wanted to cite a court document that said that John Doe was found at fault in causing a car accident. That source could NOT be used for any of the following purposes 1) Establishing that John Doe should have an article at Wikipedia 2) Establishing that John Doe is a habitually bad driver 3) That the accident itself is a significant enough event to include in a Wikipedia article about John Doe. For any of those three things, you would need some other source to make that clear. --Jayron32 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand, and as such this source seems to be usable for the article for the purpose OP wants to use it for. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Uncontroversial sources everyone can pretty much agree on

Following up with this discussion and others, what are the community's thoughts on working up something for sources that pretty much everyone agrees are uncontroversially reliable? Part of a problem with the way that RSP is set up, is that if a source is really stellar, like say Nature (journal), then it's so uncontroversial that it never gets discussed at all, and so we never have any information about it at RSP. So wondering if anyone thinks it would be worthwhile to have a discussion about the best sources, for the benefit of unfamiliar users who are looking for information at RSP, and confuse absence from the list with uncertainty regarding a source's reliability. GMGtalk 17:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea. I would suggest that a relatively small amount of dissent should be enough to keep a source off the list, since the idea is to list uncontroversial reliable sources. John M Baker (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd urge caution on this. Per WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content". Even the best sources get things wrong sometimes, and while Nature should be an impeccable source for science topics, it might be less so for topics beyond its scope. A list of 'uncontroversially reliable' sources could end up being misused as a justification for stifling any discussion as to whether a particular citation is appropriate. At minimum, any such list should start with a header explaining that presence on the list is a guide to the sources' general reliability on their specialist field, and not an assertion that anything they say about anything is Wikipedia-reliable. (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the idea is that it would be like WP:RS/P in that it only gives a general "temperature" of the community's reaction to a source; people can still argue sources on a case-by-case basis, but entries like that give people some sense of where the discussion is likely to start. (I do agree that "definitely reliable" is trickier than depreciation - there are some sources that are realistically not usable outside of the sort of exemptions in WP:SPS; but there is no source that is universally reliable for absolutely everything in all contexts. Still, I doubt anyone would interpret the list that way.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill's new page patrol source guide (WP:NPPSG) is structured in a way that would work well for listing uncontroversial sources, although it's different: the NPPSG includes all of the entries in the perennial sources list, plus any sources that have been discussed at least once somewhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps WP:NPPSG § Medicine and health and WP:NPPSG § Science and technology would be good starting points for a source like Nature. — Newslinger talk 00:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Masters theses as reliable source for notability purposes

I'm engaged in an AfD right now and the opponent rebutted that the subject organization was in a thesis "MSc thesis which mentions ___ 44 times." In writing theses, students work with different organizations and companies closely so it doesn't surprise me that an organization that a student have worked with was 44 times in the entire thesis. I believe theses are reliable for verifiability purposes, but I'm pondering whether an organization being approached by a student for a thesis and talked about in the thesis do anything for establishing notability.

WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Masters_Theses I have also looked at this. Graywalls (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I found out the exact source. Hacking the field An ethnographic and historical study of the Dutch hacker field Sociology Master’s Thesis Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2011 by Elgin Blankwater. I think it's interesting and I have used reports like this for contents within an article. I think the author's research can be a reasonably reliable source, but likely of no significant to establishing the notability of RevSpace. Any input on the way I am interpreting the source reliability? Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Graywalls: Without looking at the example in question, I'd say it depends on whether the information was gained solely through student-company interaction or also through research independent of the company. If all the information obtained was done so through a contact(s) at the company, then this should be consdered a type of interview, where WP:IV (an essay, rather than a policy) becomes relevant. I think that such thesis should be considered, in general, as reliable sources, given the caveat of whether intimacy with the subject might suggest a conflict of interest or not. Hope this is helpful, and not just confounding. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ceyockey:, I don't have a whole lot of details. This is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RevSpace . An opponent referenced to an existence of a thesis that mentions the article organization "44 times". I haven't been in a discussion where a thesis was tried as evidence of notability which is why I am asking about it here. Graywalls (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
From WP:RS:"Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". So unless the thesis has been cited elsewhere multiple times by experts in the field it isn't WP:RS. And since (unlike a PhD thesis) such documents aren't normally formally published they do nothing to establish notability. (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Master thesis is only rarely useable as a reliable source and confers next to no notability to the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Commment - I think that masters theses are only considered notable (or "important" to use the in-house term) if they are published ans widely used other works. I suspect that the concerns being raised by Graywalls is an accurate description of matters. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Masters dissertations and theses vary widely quality depending upon the institution and whether they are just part of the assessment for the degree or basically the whole assessed part. The WP:RS quote above is clearly relevant here. They should be used only if they meet that guideline and even if this did I don't see it as establishing notability. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If the institution is legitimate - in a U.S. context I'd lean heavily on whether it's accredited - and everything else is okay (university processes were followed, thesis committee or readers were qualified, etc.) then a Master's thesis is certainly a reliable source. But Master's theses and even doctoral dissertations are typically viewed as weak documents when considering due weight; as Jack Sebastian alludes to above, these sources are typically viewed as being much stronger if they're independently published e.g., as one or more journal articles, as a book. If the only or most prominent source for some information is a Master's thesis, that's probably a good sign that the information shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: Hi, I added the thesis as a source to the article. It is a MSc thesis from a Dutch university, the University of Amsterdam. According to the CWUR, the UvA is the number 123 best university in the world. The thesis was made under supervision of Albert Benschop, to whom the thesis subject is his specialty. I would definitely view this as WP:RS. Dwaro (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
You will hardly find anyone here, who would support MSc thesis as a strong source to prove notability of the article subject (which is the core issue here and in that AfD). This doesn´t mean it can´t be used in the article as a reference for uncontroversial facts, but with usual caution (due weight). Pavlor (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Indian fake media outlets

Just read this on the BBC [11]. It's about a report from the EU disinfo labs looking into fake media outlets, this time of Indian origin [12] [13] (28MB PDF). They've given the sites names like Plymouth Tribune and Times of Portugal to try and fool people. They've also given themselves names of defunct publications like Toronto Telegram and Fox Footy Channel and Brighton Herald. There is a list on Google Drive that leads to Google Maps, [14]. I haven't worked out how to retrieve a table or otherwise get a simple list of sites. I did check a bunch of our articles and so far they don't seem to have either managed or attempted to make it seems like the publications never died. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I should also say that other than the weird example of the Fox Footy Channel, and I'm not sure if that was ever their domain name and in any case, the only articles where it should be used aren't likely to be of concern, most of the outlets seem to be long before the web era. So if their websites are used, they're very likely dodgy. Of course I only looked at like 10-20. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The headline fake media outlet seems to be used in 2 articles, as is We have an article New Delhi Times (newspaper), I wonder if we should. I forgot to mention that one good piece of news is I don't think we're really the the target of this, at least not directly. Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne, I think per the RfC below we can probably do the following:
  1. Establish an initial list of known fake news / disinformation sites;
  2. Establish a blacklisting process either through edit filter or through the WP:SBL
  3. Establish criteria for identifying additional sites to add to the list (identified by reliable sources such as the EU disinformation project as fake);
  4. Establish a simple process for addition to the list.
My preference is an edit filter with requests posted here and implemented by an independent admin or EFM, analogous to the spam blacklist. This is the venue that will probably get most eyes with an interest on assessing and/or challenging these additions.
I am OK with proposing an amendment to the RfC wording to catch non-state but still clearly malicious fake news, but in order not to be controversial we have to be really sure that the definition excludes sites like some hypothetical new InfoWars (popular "conservative" platform that publishes egregious bullshit), because we will want much more input on those due to the dramah that would inevitably result. We already know that the right wing media exploit the fact that most neo-Nazis are "conservative" to challenge suppression of neo-Nazism as "anti-conservative bias", and we could do without that. Guy (help!) 12:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedias of James B. Minahan

Minahan's encyclopedias are commonly used on Wikipedia (easily accessed on Google Books, one being [15]), but there has been a lot of debate on talk-pages over the years on whether the information found in his works are reliable. Firstly, a lot of information is factually wrong and contradicts information found elsewhere. Some of the discussions on Wikipedia can be found here: [16] [17] [18][19][20].

One of his claims that - for me - deems him unreliable is his claim of the Zazas having an ethnic flag (which one editor is keen on adding the article with Minahan as the reference[21]). Minahan writes: "Flag: the Zaza national flag is red field bearing a traditional Zaza design resembling a large white Z centered. The flag of the Dersim Movement is pale green field bearing a red diamond centered charged with a sun rising behind mountains"[22]. If this was true, it would only take 5 second on Google Search to verify this. There is nothing on this, except this which does not seem reliable either and even uses the word Alleged flag of 'Zazaistan'.

I can't honestly think of an example where these encyclopedias can be used. If information can be found elsewhere, those references should be used - and if not - editors should stay away from that information. So my question is, can Minahan's encyclopedias be assumed as RS? --Semsurî (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I will repeat a question asked in one of the threads you posted above: what are his credentials? Publisher looks fine, but that alone is not sufficient to resolve usability of that book. Pavlor (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
User:TizStriz questioned his use at Talk:Stateless nation#James Minahan's books as sources and references recently as did User:Argean. There was a debate at Talk:Ahwazi Arabs#Ahwazi Arabs edits between a retired editor and an IP. At Talk:English people/Archive 16 User:Matt Lunker commented on this book of his saying that it "has several inaccuracies (eg population), serious over-simplifications and some outright howlers. It refers to the Kingdom of England as a current entity and also believes that it "shares the island with (amongst others) the territories of the Northumbrians... and Cornish"." All I've ever been able to find out about him is that he's a freelance author and independent researcher living in Barcelona. His books get used a lot here and indeed in other books, but I've got no confidence in them. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, anyone that can do just a basic research on WP:RS can identify numerous mistakes in Minahan's books. I've been aware of his so-called encyclopedias for some years and I've been impressed on how superficial and unscientific his work seems to be. Some of the population figures are way off the mark and lacking any substantial documentation. To give a few examples, in his 2002 Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations he claimed that there were 100,000 (!) Livonians [23] when the actual number was only a few hundreds people, and in his 2016 version he discovered the existence of 100,000-500,000 (!!!) Merya [24] when probably just a few people still identify as such. Also, many of the flags he reports are completely non-existant, like the Zaza flag that has been mentioned a few times here or this alleged flag of the Pomaks [25] that can't be found anywhere else but in his books. In all honesty, I don't know how he does his research, but I can't really take seriously someone claiming that e.g. (and among many other outrageous examples) the people of Corfu are a stateless nation "also known as Ionians or Ionian Islanders, [who] are a people of mixed Greek and Venetian background." [26]... --Argean (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
A short discussion here in "Methodology" which indicates caution. You might ask the editor what works Minahan cites in that section.—eric 20:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Some interesting findings here by User:Darthkayak here today as well. [27]. There seems to be consensus on the reliability. --Semsurî (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should be adding this to WP:RSP as "deprecated". The appearance of scholarly legitimacy combined with some pretty remarkable factual errors means we would have to individually check his own cited sources every time, which puts us in the position of fact-checkers not editors and is an open invitation to original research. Guy (help!) 12:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe a more important issue to identify is bias in his criteria for what constitutes a "nation" refusal to use government or official sources and possibly being somewhat liberal in inclusion even by his own definition. Some of the "errors" identified above might be better characterized as such. WP:BIASED should apply always, and facts such as flags and numbers not useful as you say, but maybe used and attributed as other minority or biased viewpoints where appropriate?—eric 13:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Is there any review of his book in a mainstream topic-related journal? As far as I see it, this is a book full of errors, by no-name author, with only its publisher somewhat fine (which means next to nothing in this case). Better not use this source. Pavlor (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecate I'm concerned with how much it's used, and Stateless nation uses it heavily - by far it's the main source there. Doug Weller talk 21:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, is a reliable source? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Unlikely. On the front page right now is the stock picture of refugees fraudulently used by Farage in the Brexit referendum, illustrating a story about how Netherlands "has sheltered criminals: murderers and thieves receive free housing". This looks like a Russian fake news farm. That's supported by its claim to be the "latest world news from the DPR / LPR", i.e. the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, two Russian-occupied Ukrainian oblasts. Guy (help!) 17:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that one looks bad, and there are good sources (cited in another thread) explaining what it is. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Propose removal

The above site appears to be Russian-sponsored propaganda, per the BBC (, referencing the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force We have over 500 references to it, mainly in timelines of the Donbass occupation, precisely the area where it is least likely to be reliable. That seems to me like a pressing problem. I suggest immediate removal of redundant references to this site, and either removing content sourced solely to this or removal of the cite and tagging {{cn}}. Check this article for example. Guy (help!) 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Concur - zapped a few, the "Timeline" articles are a bear though - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Other Russian fake news / disinformation sites

Looking for others. Guy (help!) 17:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What consensus do we need, and where, to drop these in the spam filter? - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
David Gerard, normally we have an RfC here. Guy (help!) 20:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
If you think you can frame one convincingly, please do! - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
A strange choice, in my opinion. And why there are no Prigozhin's dumps, clones of RIA FAN? - quite mainstream media by Russian standards. is a site for various militarists, a special case.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG: A few more Russian fake news/disinformation/propaganda sites (here and here):

--Neutralitytalk 22:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
"Veterans" - yes, probably. Others are not particularly reliable (the entire staff of "lenta" have left or was fired after refusal to follow the "state line"), but they can publish a lot of non-political information that may be useful. My very best wishes (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


The Donbas timeline articles are all problematic I think. Guy (help!) 18:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The timeline articles themselves are basically coatracks of unencyclopaedic information taken from unreliable and fake sites...their existence in and of itself should be questioned. Unian is not a Russian website, it's a Ukrainian news agency. As to whether it is reliable or not, I certainly place it in the 'questionable' box. RGloucester 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Still looking into this.
"Unian" is not great, but not an obviously "questionable source". My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe

I assume we reject this for the same reason we reject Pravda? Guy (help!) 21:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It's done a bit better for reality basis than, say, RT. Though I'd say RFC first. It's not in the same class as the actually-fake-news sites - David Gerard (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: & @David Gerard: I don't know what you have seen, but I have found both Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's website and YouTube channel to be Generally Reliable. X1\ (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
RFE is literally and explicitly for the purpose of propaganda - but it's very open about it, and tries to have good and robust content. So I wouldn't worry about the content's reliability, but I'd probably attribute. (and now the song's stuck in my head) - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard: There are many types of propaganda. If you are a totalitarian dictatorship with state-controlled media, describing reality can be viewed by the state as subversive and dangerous propaganda, say from an open democratic mixed-economy state. That democratic state would view it as just free and honest journalism describing reality, and media coming from the dictatorship as threatening dangerous propaganda. Attribution is always welcome at Wikipedia. Both content and intent matter. I haven't yet seen RFE/RL not matching other GREL, and sometimes its content is superior to other sources on topics that RFE/RL is focused. If you have seen otherwise, from the welcome quality I have seen so far, I would greatly appreciate you posting links here of content you find troubling there.
Listening to that song [29] may get that worm out of your ear, per research. X1\ (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. This is great and "generally reliable source". Like I said, being state-sponsored is not that much relevant. An important factor is "reputation for fact-checking". My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016) - there are 48 "timeline" articles compiled from day-by-day news coverage, primarily in fake news and disinformation sites as noted above. Needless to say the primary contributors want to keep them, and some people assert that "AfD is not cleanup", though the rationale explicitly states that cleanup cannot be achieved when 550 of 650 unique sources are propaganda and the rest are as yet unverified. Guy (help!) 20:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:BOLDly closing this since there's been no further comments in well over a week. Editors seem to unanimously agree that CNSNews is generally unreliable for factual reporting. ToThAc (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

See HTTPS links HTTP links; and for earlier discussion see: What about "Cybercast News Service" (CNSnews)? and aka cybercast.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of

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

-TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Looking at today’s content, I don’t see anything that would make me question it... I was very pleased to see that opinion and blog pieces are CLEARLY marked as such, to differentiate them from news reporting. That said, my opinion is based on just one examination, and I do not know what its reputation is historically. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Generally unreliable, it's an arm of the Media Research Center, an explicitly-right-wing partisan organization; the site's managing editor declared that a children's book about a black, gay Santa Claus is pro-homosexual and Just in time to further sexualize (and homosexualize) children and that Apparently, depicting two "married" male Santas who presumably anally sodomize each other as pretend-love -- and deliver gifts to children! -- is in no way an attack on Christmas. A site whose managing editor holds such extremist positions cannot be trusted to provide meaningful news coverage. This is neatly demonstrated by a purported "news" article published earlier this year which purportedly contrasts so-called gay marriage with real marriage between a man and a woman. An American "news" site which contends that heterosexual marriage is the only "real" marriage is not factually depicting the world as it is in the year of our Lord two thousand and nineteen, but rather presenting a right-wing fantasy safe space in which Obergefell v. Hodges did not happen. At best, the site might be useful for personal opinions of right-wing commentators. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    That very article mentions Obergefell v. Hodges and consists mostly of quotes from Gallup. The article uses distasteful language to describe gay marriage but that doesn't make it inaccurate or a "fantasy". It accurately describes a present-day America in which gay marriage is legal and enjoys wide support while also making it clear that Mr. Chapman thinks this is icky and wrong. I'd be more comfortable with excluding news sources based on demonstrably sloppy fact-checking rather than on the editors holding particular views – in this case views which are probably still shared by a majority of the world's population. Haukur (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    The article is openly homophobic. Should we accept a source that is openly anti-Semitic? A source that refers to the "so-called Holocaust"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - I admit freely that most of my browsing of the site comes from NorthBySouthBaranof's links that he provides in his comments, but after reading through that content, I don't see how this can be considered a reliable neutral source, as least, when it comes to factual reporting. I agree with his points that he already made above. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sigh... so, once again, people are mixing the opinion side of journalism and the actual news coverage side. Look at the source again. Yes, there is some very biased material there, BUT... All the biased and opinionated material is clearly marked as “Blog” or “opinion”. I would agree that THAT kind material is not reliable (except as a primary source for the authors opinion)... However... the site’s actual news reporting seems to be fairly free of bias and opinion. Refreshingly so. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. I just literally linked a claimed "News" article that is outright homophobic and leads readers to the conclusion that two men can't have a "real" marriage. It's no more linked to reality than an article which denies the Holocaust. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That is not an accurate representation of that article. It says, correctly, that gay marriage is legal in the US and enjoys broad support in polls. But it also makes clear that the author is among the minority which opposes this. The language used to express this is distasteful and does not speak well for the source. But the position itself isn't some bizarre fringe view - it was the majority view in the US just a few years ago and is probably still the majority view in the world as a whole. Haukur (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I look forward to your use of The Daily Stormer on the grounds that describing Jews as "money-grubbing parasites" is not a bizarre fringe view and indeed was the majority view in Germany in 1939. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Please be nice. Haukur (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
His comparison was completely valid and there wasn't anything "not nice" about it. JimKaatFan (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be better to discuss this sort of thing without jumping straight to the most imflammatory examples every time. But if you absolutely insist on discussing Nazis then let's discuss Nazis. No, I'm of course not suggesting we cite the Daily Stormer. But the most relevant question for evaluating sources is not what the political views of the authors and editors are but whether the source operates according to journalistic and/or scholarly standards. If that checks out then a source can be reliable, even if written by, yes, Nazis. In my field, I do often have to cite literal card-carrying Nazis like this guy or this guy who both did a lot of useful scholarly work. They get cited on Wikipedia too and I think that's, in most cases, okay. In some cases, of course, their work is obsolete but the fields they worked in move too slowly for this to be true in every case. To get closer to our original example, if revealing someone as an opponent of gay marriage were enough to disqualify everything they write as a source then, well, that would rule out quite a lot. More generally speaking, it would be much too narrow a restriction to only cite enlightened 21st century Western liberal sources. Haukur (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The way you wrote your last sentence, it sounds like you think everything that's not written by a neo-Nazi is a "liberal source." I'm sure that's not what you meant, though. And I'm sure your use of the word "enlightened" wasn't sarcastic. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Unreliable. It's a right-wing pro-Trump mouthpiece. Neither fair nor balanced at all. Gerntrash (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Came across this website recently. It is blatantly biased and not reliable.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Abysmal site. If there's anything actually useful there, we should be evaluating and citing whatever source they're repackaging it from. When a non-news organisation skins part of their site with "news" in the name, that is not magic pixie dust actually making it an actual newspaper with reporters and factchecking. One of the biggest red flags is when a site explicitly identifies themselves as anti-RS. NPOV means RS mainstream views and RS significant minority views, not RS and anti-RS. Sources that are explicitly anti-RS are generally either unreliable and/or fringe (raising weight issues). This organisation explicitly identifies as "expose and neutralize" "the national news media". The particular flavor of their anti-RS agenda is irrelevant. Alsee (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3, the quality of their reporting is not high enough to bother dealing with the NPOV and bias issues. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:40, 7 December 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.

Interesting article about independent-looking-but-actually-not news sources. And paid editing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I'll make a deal with the WSJ. If they want me to cite their journalism on one of the most popular web sites in the world, then they need to have some function where I can verify my SUL and read their dang articles. GMGtalk 18:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    For whatever reason, I could read it this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

    The Bypass Paywalls browser extension is working well for me. It supports Firefox and Chrome. Alternatively, you can look up the URL of the article in a search engine, and then click through to the WSJ to bypass the paywall. (This works because most search engines penalize sites for cloaking.) — Newslinger talk 18:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

  • See also WP:COIN § "How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online" from The Wall Street Journal for a list of users and articles that were implicated by the report. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We have likely instances of this on this page, but those who can afford these kinds of fees to scrub their online image may also hire a lawyer to sue anyone who questions their Wikipedia article. In that case, Wikipedia is forced to turn over identifying info (like IP), and you the editor end up in court. So the scrubbed versions persist, and frank discussion here at RSN is impeded. And, catchy headline, but I doubt this is restricted to the 1%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    Is there legal precedent for this? I found Theodore Katsanevas § Papandreou heritage, but the Wikimedia Foundation provided legal support to the Wikipedia user who was sued for defamation and the result backfired on the plaintiff. — Newslinger talk 20:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    Reminds me of Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station#Controversy_over_Wikipedia_article. We have Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation but it may not be comprehensive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    Newslinger, I am not going to answer that question, but am glad you asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think that's a pretty fatalistic thing to say. Legal threats against individual editors can be countered by a single editor outside of the plaintiff's jurisdiction, and actual legal action would certainly lead to the Streisand effect. userdude 03:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:COIN is on the case, and is going through the articles - I expect more help would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Phoronix seems to be widely used as a source in Wikipedia. It however seems to be basically a personal blog of Larabel styled as a news site. The content can be divided into two groups:

  1. News. These are probably best avoided altogether as sources. Because Phoronix does not seem to be an one-man show without any editorial control, it should be considered as a generally unreliable self-published source. The articles usually refer to other websites: if that source can be considered reliable, it should be used directly instead.
  2. Benchmarks from Phoronix Test Suite. These may be used sometimes, but only if the individual benchmark article has got considerable attention in expert circles and/or mainstream media, and preferably with attribution.

--ilmaisin (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Its a blog, which tells me no its not RS unless it can be shown its by a recognized expert.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have come across this source in an article, and was wondering if it's considered a reliable source. The site looks incredibly old, but has an active forum. I do not speak German however, and was not able to find any 'about' page or any other indication of whether the site has a professional editorial board, or reprints its news from elsewhere, or any other indicator of reliability of the source. Any help would be appreciated. —Ynhockey (Talk) 20:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Is The Daily Beast a reliable source

Is The Daily Beast a reliable source? The perennial sources table states there has not been much discussion about the source. In fact, there has only been a discussion here [30] and here [31] by a total of seven editors. The color in the table implies that it is a poor source.

After reviewing the information and reliable sources available, my conclusion about The Daily Beast is that it is a good reliable source because:

  • On the website,, one of the reliable sources that is used by this board to determine the factual accuracy of a news website, The Daily Beast is rated for factual reporting as high.[32] This is the same rating that other good news sources such as The New York Times have received.[33]
  • Other editors agree that The Daily Beast is a good source. A search of Wikipedia indicates that The Daily Beast is cited 6,009 times. Each of those citations is a vote by an editor that The Daily Beast is a good source. In each of those citations, an editor read the article and weighed the facts and concluded that, yes, The Daily Beast knows what it is saying and is not making up facts. For each of those citations, an editor has stated that The Daily Beast passes muster for verifying the content they added to Wikipedia.
  • The Daily Beast has won a number of press awards in recent years. It was nominated for 16 LA Press Club awards in 2016[34] and 12 LA Press Club awards in 2017.[35] The Daily Beast won: 5 LA Press Club awards in 2019,[36], 5 LA Press Club awards in 2018,[37] 4 LA Press Club awards in 2017,[38] 2 New York Press Club awards in 2018,[39] and 3 New York Press Club awards in 2017.[40]
  • The Daily Beast on its front page has a clear link to its Code of Ethics and Standards. The code of ethics without hesitation states that its goal is to seek the truth. As quoted from the code of ethics page:
"The Daily Beast is dedicated to independent journalism, pursued without fear or favor. We value an inclusive culture, committed to the public good. A core part of our mission is to confront bullies, bigots and hypocrites. We believe that skepticism is a virtue and cynicism is a vice. Above all, our goal is to tell the truth. To that end, journalists must strive to hold themselves to high ethical standards: aiming for honesty, fairness and accuracy while avoiding conflicts of interest."

This question arose because an editor on an article blanket removed[41] all content and sourcing to The Daily Beast and a little unexplained extra. They took the position that The Daily Beast was a poor source and should not be used for sourcing anything in the article. I look forward to hearing other editors' opinions on the reliability of The Daily Beast. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Generally reliable - not perfect, but a normal news source, editorial processes, etc - no reason not to use it as a source - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to say that MediaBiasFactCheck is not a reliable source, and is not authoritative when it comes to judging other sources. It started as Some Random Guy's blog and is now Some Random Guy's LLC. It is owned and operated by a single person with no qualifications whatsoever, and apparently some volunteers (see here [42]). He uses some kind of numerical scoring system he made up, but if you look at his methodology, the whole thing is based entirely on his own subjective judgments. No opinion on The Daily Beast. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable I would only avoid DB if it is the only source reporting a highly controversial claim about a BLP (but that's the case in general for most sources IMO). --Masem (t) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh... Not Unreliable ... but In almost every case, there will be BETTER, far MORE reliable sources available. Use those instead. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable - as much as any mainstream outlet could be.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable with strong bias: I would be careful about putting to much weight into the things that TDB says due to their very strong and clear bias. That bias is based on facts but then put through their strong perspective on events. So it's not out of the blue OpEd but also not just the facts with no spin. The articles I've read of theirs tend to present one side without considering if the other side (typically the GOP/right/conservative/etc side) has merit to their views. Media Bias Fact Check, [[43]] and Allsides [[44]] but them firmly in the left camp. Allsides noted a considerable increase in partisanship in 2016. Their Media Bias Chart position isn't bad overall. However when you look at the rated articles it's clear that if politics are part of the picture they quickly shift down and to the left (more bias, less facts, more commentary) [[45]]. Thus I wouldn't treat them as universally reliable. I would happily cite them for something about the college cheating scandal or the relative performance of the Democrats in the primaries. I think we should be cautious when using them regarding topics that have strong left-right splits. Springee (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally reliable per extremely strong WP:USEBYOTHERS; the Daily Beast is generally treated as a reliable source by most other reliable sources out there covering similar news / politics topics. Nobody has shown any indication that there are any serious problems with it to offset this reputation. My impression when people object to it is that it usually goes something like... a quick search to anything important said by the Daily Beast finds two or three obviously-reliable sources covering it directly citing the Daily Beast. We could just use those secondary sources, but the fact that those sources are so willing to rely on the Daily Beast without qualification implies that it, itself, is reliable in its own right. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Persistently reliable I've read their stories frequently and have cited them at time here on Wikipedia. I have yet to see them make any sort of error, and I send a lot of corrections (which are generally welcomed) to reporters on dozens of publications. I'm frankly amazed at quality, depth and accuracy of the reporting they do, given that the competition is vastly better funded. I can't imagine that they would have published the sort of blatantly obvious nonsense that was produced by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon at the NYT in the runup to the Iraq invasion by the U.S.-led coalition, for instance. (If Bill Keller had been reading Der Spiegel, Le Monde, the Observer, etc., or even Knight-Ridder, the war may never have happened). Activist (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Handle with care. It's usually reliable for news but has a lot of comment and that is heavily skewed left. Per [46] it is both more biased and less accurate than Buzzfeed. Guy (help!) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: presumably you intended to compare to BuzzFeed News not BuzzFeed, as very different. X1\ (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Guy (help!) 10:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Good point regarding Media Bias/Fact Check. It is not the best source. It does not provide a transparent method. Another editor above provided a better source for evaluating the reliability of different news sources (i.e. Ad Fontes Media). The white paper on the methodology used to evaluate news sources indicates that Ad Font Media is systematic and transparent in their method. The perennial sources list has the column called "Uses", which should be used to evaluate the source's use in Wikipedia in a systematic fashion. If a source is used 6,000 times and each editor uses it 50 times, that's 120 editors who have evaluated the source. Or, if a source is used multiple times in different high-quality feature articles, this should say something about the quality of the source. In this specific case, the source is a much much smaller publication than the Daily Mail and has far less content (for instance it has no sports section). The Daily Mail has a monthly online viewership of 326 million, while the source being evaluated has only a monthly online viewership of 39 million. --Guest2625 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Handle with care both Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check agreed that this is a biased and not particularly reliable outlet (though it is not among the worst, it should certainly be handled with caution. MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Pink Slime News sites operated by Brian Timpone

Hi Folks, this may be worth looking at, Pink Slime and Hundreds of 'Pink Slime' Local News Outlets Are Distributing Algorithmic Stories and Conservative Talking Points, Investigation Finds scope_creepTalk 16:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. These sites are procedurally generated and lack editorial oversight, which makes them inappropriate as article sources. Some of these sites disclose their parent company (Metric Media LLC) in their about page, as seen in the about page of the Lansing Sun. I've added "Metric Media LLC" to the section name of this discussion for easier referencing in the future. — Newslinger talk 22:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Also added "Local Labs News Service", the other automated publisher, to the title. — Newslinger talk 22:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the common factor in all of these sites and companies is a businessman named Brian Timpone. Renamed again. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Since Brian Timpone is a notable person, I've created an article on him. I'm redirecting all of the related business and publication names to the article on Timpone, which should help editors when they are researching sources. Please feel free to join in. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a list of these websites somewhere? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't look like the raw data is published online. I suppose we could reach out to the author of the report, Pri Bengani, who provides her email in her staff profile. She also has a Twitter account. — Newslinger talk 23:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I will send her an email and see what she says. I am interested in knowing which of my local news sources may not be reliable also for non-wiki-related reading. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! It would be great if she could release the data online, but even if she just sends you the list, we would be able to confirm the sites through their about pages and other hallmarks. — Newslinger talk 14:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
A friend contacted her for me, and she said that they will be sharing the entire list next month. So I guess we keep an eye out for that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Query about some sources in American Descendants of Slavery

The article is a pov mess but that's another issue. A website called "Facing History and Ourselves"[47] is used to source the statement " American Descendants of Slavery can generally trace their lineage to specific European slaveholding families through their last name."[48] I see an example of doing this but nothing backing the general statement. I don't know that we can even source that statement.

"Upwards of 90% of the Black population born in the United States of America (as of 2019) are American Descendants of Slavery (A.D.O.S.)[1] (formally referred to as African Americans). A.D.O.S. cannot trace their ancestral roots to any specific country or tribe on the continent of Africa." is sourced to the website of a public radio station[49] with an article written by a science reporter.[50] I'm not questioning the second sentence, but as a principle I don't think we should use a source such as this one for genetics. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, disregarding the "tribe" line, which is more a pet peeve and not in the source itself, I have similar concerns about that second source, at least in this case. I think there might be other contexts the source could be used, it just strikes me as the sort of thing that there's probably a better source out there for this purpose. Darthkayak (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC) ... ...

It is proposed the following URLs, with this format, be entirely expunged from Wikipedia:

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 [51] - 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. Nemo 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)

It's correct, but I'll add that I proposed to start with templated links. Bare references would come last.
Meanwhile I'm using WP:UCB to perform some cleanup on redundant URLs, but that's much slower. I could speed it up, if people are happier that way, but I'm quite confident it's more effective if run after the broken URLs are removed. Nemo 08:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm now doing an even broader cleanup to try and catch those dead URLs and others, while trying not to step on the toes of others (recently edited articles etc.), but it's getting harder with just WP:UCB (fewer and fewer broken URLs actually get removed). Comments appreciated on the effect. I still think a targeted regex replacement would have the least side effects but I can continue this way if it remains the preferred method. Nemo 10:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Question -- might it not be helpful for some people looking for the paper to have even a dead URL link? Sometimes the link itself can provide DOI or other clues as to how to get the new link. I know it may occasionally be helpful to me -- just throwing that out there. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Bloomberg News / Decision not to investigate Michael Bloomberg

Should a note be added about RS regarding Bloomberg News and the 2020 US election in light of the outlet announcing a policy of not investigating Michael Bloomberg or any democratic candidates, due to its ties to candidate Michael Bloomberg? See:

Former Bloomberg bureau chief has criticized that decision, saying it bars "talented reporters and editors from covering massive, crucial aspects of one of the defining elections of our time" and calling the decision "not journalism":

As a result, the Houston Chronicle has dropped Bloomberg as a source for its campaign coverage:

Candidate Michael Bloomberg has responded to criticism, saying employees at his organization "just have to learn to live with some things":

Perhaps a note could be added here along the lines of "Because of the outlet's ties to Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, the outlet has recused itself from investigative coverage of the Democratic field in the 2020 election. Source should be used with caution regarding Michael Bloomberg and the Democratic primaries."

Or something along those lines? Just getting the conversation started. MaximumIdeas (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you looking to put a line into the article on Bloomburg News? That conversation doesn't have to involve this board; there are lots of reliable sources covering the issue, and if it relates directly to writing something in the article, it should be discussed on the article talk page. --Jayron32 20:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I read MaximumIdeas' post as suggesting a note be added to WP:RSP#Bloomberg (the second sentence of their proposed wording would obviously not be suitable for article space), but it would be useful if they could clarify. It looks as though Bloomberg is simply not engaging in specifically investigative reporting on the Democratic presidential candidates, but its other coverage of the primaries is unaffected – in which case we're obviously less likely to use them as a source on those topics, as they won't be publishing as much that we could cite, but there's no obvious issue to flag up regarding what they do publish. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Arms & Hearts is correct -- my suggestion is regarding WP:RSP#Bloomberg. The issue is already mentioned in a subsection of the Bloomberg article. MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It does not dramatically impact the source too much, since we wouldn't generally cite something the source doesn't say - the fact that they're choosing not to cover something doesn't really impact their reliability. That said, it might be worth adding a more general note that the site is considered WP:BIASED or is generally not WP:INDEPENDENT when it comes to direct coverage of Michael Bloomberg (but that would, I think, be so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated - very few sources would be considered unbiased and independent about their owner.) I don't think that that automatically makes them biased or not-independent about American politics in general, just about stuff directly discussing Bloomberg specifically. Second-order "the owner might have strong opinions about this" or "it might impact the owner's ambition in some way" concerns affect almost every source, after all, so at that point the question is whether there's coverage indicating that those potential biases have actually affected their coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    Aquillion, that makes sense. Reliable with a dagger. Like Don Jr's book sales :-) Guy (help!) 12:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion I think that is reasonable. Note that it is perhaps not so obvious because many people (myself included) were/are unaware that Bloomberg is the owner. (I knew he was the founder, but that is different.) MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it matters either way. We generally shouldn't be using Bloomberg for information about Michael Bloomberg anyway. We probably also shouldn't be using CNN for information about John Stankey, or the LA Times for information about Patrick Soon-Shiong. GMGtalk 21:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but, perhaps worth adding a note since John Stankey is not running for president, but Bloomberg is and thus will likely be the subject of a lot more cites. MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that if editors don't already know that Bloomberg is a problematic source when it comes to Bloomberg, then that's likely a competence issue of such a low common denominator that it's beyond what we should be actively planning for. GMGtalk 14:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Bad source to show reporting in bad sources?

Can I cite this Daily Express article expressing a certain conspiracy theory just to show that the conspiracy theory is reported in tabloids like the Daily Express? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you can use it to say "the daily express have reported this conspiracy theory". But I am not sure why this is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If a RS mentions and/or quotes them in that connection, you can use the RS to document it. All content must come from RS. The exception is when we use unreliable content from an unreliable source in their own article to document their positions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
No, no RS specifically mentions conspiracy theory being reported in Daily Express. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd avoid the tabloid sources myself - David Gerard (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Normally. Wanted to show that aspects of the conspiracy theory are tabloid fodder. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
As this seems to be a "look at the loonies" style story I am not sure it does that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
yeah - I'd say if I were trying to say "And the Daily Awful Non-RS Tabloid said Melania was a cabbage", I'd want to cite an RS writing about what the Daily Awful Non-RS Tabloid had to say, else it wouldn't be something worth noting. (I mean, if an RS has covered the silly idea to that extent, that'd be a great source.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Without knowing the context it's not knowable whether it should go in. But if it does, WP:RS says: "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Commercial vendors?

Where do we stand on the use of commercial vendor's websites as online sources? The material is technical and moderately obscure and is never going to be covered in any mainstream media sources. University-level textbooks would cover it too, but there are none of those leaping off my bookshelves right now.

The specific sources seem to meet our basic requirements as such. The material is not contentious, the sources cited seem to be fair and unbiased, with an appropriate level of detail, are not skewed towards one vendor and are not overly promotional. I see no reason why such should not be used, and we do already use many such sources.

The particular article suffered a bad dose of WP:BITE tonight. It had languished unsourced for years: there was one inlined EL, a dead link to a Brasilian site in Portugese. It was tagged as "expert needed" and "citations needed". A new editor showed up, with an obvious and declared link to a vendor, and who then added a few k of useful content, with some relevant links to their business' site. This was overall a clear improvement to the article. However that was then removed (three times, against two editors) and the sources and content both removed. They were then indeffed, having been warned {{uw-spam4im}}, reported to WP:AIV (which is of course only for obvious vandalism and obvious spam). There was no attempt to discuss anything with them, just to get them blocked. The content was removed, leaving the article unsourced. They even removed a Commons link I'd added - no judgement applied to anything which had happened since, just reflex rollback.

The editor removing the content then added a couple of ELs. Russian language ELs, not references (so not supporting any specific content) and not even describing the same subject. But apparentely they have diagrams in (not of the subject), so that's claimed to be good enough to justify non-English-language, despite WP:NONENGEL!

Another editor (long-term admin) then did some editing and added some sources, from other commercial suppliers. These have been left (I'd support the use of either of these as refs).

See Larssen sheet piling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Meever&meever (talk · contribs) and also Deep foundation, where the same editor is now looking for other articles from which to strip long-established refs, simply for pointing to a commercial site.

  • Where is the policy which supposedly forbids the use of a commercial site as a ref? We do not use individual companies or sellers to source broad subjects.(see User talk:Andy Dingley#Please revert )

I know of no such policy. Of course we have to guard against spam, but that's why we do careful editing and make judgement calls. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Backlinking to one's own website is clearly WP:OR and WP:SPAM and is a very common tactic these days for companies to do precisely this to raise their Google SEO ranking, in fact there are plenty of sites on the internet explaining this exact procedure to exploit Wikipedia for this purpose. To avoid promoting this bad behavior, I will not post any of them here, but will happily email some examples to folks upon request. Waggie (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So what? We know that's a regular problem. But it's not the case that all uses of such a link, whether added by the company or not, are equally bad, or equally usable. We have two questions here:
  1. Where is the policy which supposedly forbids the use of a commercial site as a ref?
  2. Does the status of a link change, simply on who added it, or is it objective and based on what it points to?
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Since the source is a WP:SPS, then they would need to be established experts in the relevant field to be reliable, or else the website's content should only be used about the commercial vendor itself per the requirements in WP:ABOUTSELF. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there the slightest question that Meever & Meever, or ArcelorMittal aren't subject experts here? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
From 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" (emphasis added). It doesn't matter whether we consider them subject experts or not. What matters is whether independent, reliable publications consider them as such (which we have no evidence of so far). We don't even have a by-line on the Meever & Meever product page to determine if any particular author is actually an SME or not. The ArcelorMittal source is at least a real publication with contributors listed, and garners substantially more credibility, as such. Frankly, it appears as though you're trying to argue that marketing materials are a reliable source, and that so long as there isn't "excessive promotion" that it's acceptable. However, promotion of any sort is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia. Neutrality is established as one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, a core tenet that is crucial to it's mission and credibility, and is a non-stop battle to enforce. Why are you so dead set on trying to get a self-published, COI source into this article? I'm genuinely baffled by this. Waggie (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC) as reliable source

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.
Since no-one has commented here for well over a week, I'm going to close this as generally unreliable. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Can can be considered as reliable source for belgian-related aviation to be used in article of Belgian Air Component, or just a self-published website? Ckfasdf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

At the first glance, falls into self-published website, as it was pretty much managed only by Daniel Brackx. However, as he is a belgian-journalist on aviation topics and author of several books related to belgian aviation which also have been used as reference by other author. And refer to statement on WP:SPS that 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. provide detailed information on belgian-related aviation (including details on aircraft inventory) that other website site such as and didn't provide. The information on is also correct depend to its date of update and can be verified by looking up the news.

For example on this page, provide information regarding belgian B-Hunter UAV. That page inform us that initially belgian air component received 13 UAVs which correct refer to other sources such as here and here. Then it says one unit crashed during test phase which also align with other source here. 1 unit was crashed and another 1 was downed in Congo also can be found on other source here and here. 2 unit was crashed on elsenborn base in 2006,2007 and 2010 (news here for 2006 and 2007 and for 2010). Hence total active aircraft is 13 unit, which is also the same as information on Belgian MoD.

I can put other examples on , which can be verified. Therefore, I believe that can accepted as reliable source. Regards. (Ckfasdf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC))

  • Not reliable The site states "a website that everyone can build together. It's easy!" which has contributors with unknown knowledge levels on the subject. Further if we need to have the reader verify the source by "by looking up the news", then we should by pass the site and go straight to the source. - FOX 52 (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable (reason: WP:UGC/WP:SPS type of source). The detail that is not found elsewhere (in a reliable source) can not be used in Wikipedia (while simply: too much detail – Wikipedia is supposed to give a summary of reliable sources, not dish out details that can only be found in questionable sources); what can be found in multiple other reliable sources, can also be referenced to these multiple other reliable sources. Wikipedia does not need this source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for reasons similar to foregoing. One might quote material in suitable contexts, but not as reliably sourced. JonRichfield (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - pretty much per the above - the fact that we can verify some of the information on the site with other sources doesn't make it generally reliable. GirthSummit (blether) 11:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable To be clear some SPS can be reliable especially when published by experts, so whether this is an SPS and whether it's reliable are two separate questions. In any case the website accepts user-generated content, and it's unclear what if any fact-checking process is being used to vet this information as none are listed or what qualifies the author for particular expertise in this area. Could be a useful starting point for research though. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
Since there appears to be enough opinions on the matter, I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion. Though all of the participants alternated between options 2 and 3, consensus seems to indicate that the reliability of Anadolu Agency varies depending on the scenario. For this reason, I believe we can set the precedent used for RT, in that Anadolu Agency is ambiguously reliable for general topics, and generally unreliable for controversial topics and international politics. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Which of the following options describes Anadolu Agency the best as a reference?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated --Jamez42 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey (Anadolu Agency)

  • Option 2 or 3 – It's been Turkish state-run media since its inception, but since the AKP's consolidation of power in the 21st century editorial control to make the agency follow government political lines has been even stricter. May be usable for non-controversial news stories and for the official views of the Turkish government, but not reliable for anything else of a political nature. signed, Rosguill talk 02:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 Should not be cited without direct attribution, especially on issues related to Turkish politics. Editorial control by the government is extensive, which brings into question its reliability. --Jayron32 13:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Similar to Telesur, PressTV and Sputnik (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), Anadolu is a state-run agency with a clear motive. At the very least, attribution must be used for inclusion in the project.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3 per above. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3, the quality of their reporting has declined significantly over the last three years. Hopefully one day it will be reliable against today it is not. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 This source is mostly unreliable and should only be used when better reliable sources are not available. --qedk (t c) 10:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - State-run outlets are almost always biased when it comes to foreign policy and politically sensitive matters, (remember how the US Gov was adamant that Saddam had nuclear weapons?) but are usually fine (and often indispensable) for routine facts concerning the country (such as government appointments, economic statistics, census results, etc). -Zanhe (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (with 3 in some special circumstances) - just like in previous comment; AA is huge and still regarded among other state-run and non-state agencies, so I doubt that they would resort to "blatant distortions" on regular basis and risk being rejected compliantly in a business which often or entirely depends on this regard and exchange of news-info.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 3 It can be used for such things as statements by certain politicians (Erdogan for example), and carefully for non-controversial news that do not involve politics and economic statistics. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Anadolu Agency)

  • I'm curious if anyone has information on if or how Anadolu Agency differs from TRT World (RSP entry), another state-run Turkish media outlet with an international focus. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Rosguill: The difference I see is that Anadolu Agency (AA) is disseminated more than TRT, I have encountered Anadolu more often while seeking sources. While reading through AA, there were many similarities between it and other state-run agencies we have determined are not reliable. Similar to Telesur, AA uses distorted facts, with Bellingcat stating "AA as a whole can only be considered as blatant and deliberate twisting and distorting of the facts".----ZiaLater (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    ZiaLater, I guess it's also possible that the two agencies have become more redundant since the imposition of tighter editorial control––there may not necessarily be a difference between them. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    @ZiaLater and Rosguill: if TRT has an international focus, perhaps this is in part why. TRT World doesn't seem to have the sort of prominence that sources like Al Jazeera or the BBC have. Even VOA arguably has more prominence. Also this is the English wikipedia, and I don't know what TRT World's English coverage. So it's probably going to be rare someone bothers to use TRT World, in discussing for example, the relationship between Trump and the EU, or the 1MDB scandal in Malaysia. Even something which involves Turkey, like for example the recent NATO summit and the various disputes between various leaders I guess it's going to come up less. Except in cases specifically relating to Turkey. And in those cases I would imagine AA may cover that as well. For Turkish internal stuff, we're often going to be looking at Turkish sources so AA may come up as one of them. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.

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

Some state-sponsored fake news / disinformation sites have been identified at WP:RSN. Examples:

I propose the following:

  • Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation should be:
  1. Presumptively deprecated and listed at an addendum or sister-page of WP:RSP as such (with evidence).
  2. Added to an edit filter with "Prevent the user from performing the action in question" and a suitably stated warning.
  3. Removed expeditiously along with any text that might be challenged (or, if text is left, {{cn}} added); the use of semi-automated tools is appropriate for this.
  • If in doubt, consensus should be sought here prior to addition.

I'm not opposed to a wider RfC but that would be hard to frame and manage and by restricting this to state-sponsored disinformation I think we reduce this to the point where I hope it would hould have broad support. A new InfoWars would still need a separate RfC per current practice because we have no evidence that it's state-sponsored, so this is purely for the really obvious ones. Guy (help!) 00:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


  • Support as proposer. Guy (help!) 00:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support unless outright blacklisting is preferred. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with some caveats. For this sort of sweeping action (an edit filter against an entire broad category of sources), it needs to be completely, unambiguously clear that they are a state-sponsored disinformation outlets, with no serious dispute in any mainstream source and no evidence that they have any serious reputation anywhere at all. More hazy or contested cases still need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis; plenty of state-owned media is still reliable, even when people accuse it of being propaganda (after all, the BBC was cited as evidence here!) But I do agree that as these sites get rolled out faster and in larger numbers, this sort of action is probably necessary and seems relatively safe as long as it's done judiciously. --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and spamblock - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and spamblock these four sites - as above. Neutralitytalk 16:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and spamblock as per above. No brainer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and spamblock per nom: Should be a SNOW close given the unanimous support for this action, but voting here anyways to show the overwhelming support for this measure. ToThAc (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Against Firstly I'm skeptical that the three latter sources, based on just the two sources quoted alone, are even "state sponsored", "fake news", or "disinformation". Moreover, it seems a standard of deprecating some state-sponsored sources and not others (BBC, CBC, etc) is inherently arbitrary. Many of the sources calling the credibility of others into question suffer a direct conflict of interest (they're all competitors, after all). Edit5001 (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
See [53]. To say that reality-based news providers identify fake news websites as fake because they are "competitors" is absurd. Guy (help!) 00:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support depreciating these specific sources. The problem is not that such sources are state-sponsored (a news organization can be state-sponsored and still be independent and reliable source, although not in Russia of course), but the sites being created specifically for the purpose of promoting disinformation. One should bold not "state-sponsored", but fake news / disinformation sources. All statements in pages that refer to these sources should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
    My very best wishes, my intent was to distinguish these from sites like InfoWars or OANN, where blacklisting would be controversial. Guy (help!) 23:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and spamblock. These are even more worthy of banning than the Daily Mail (and that's really saying something). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Against: a separate assessment should be made for each source. Burrobert (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


In related news, Headbomb now has WP:EFM rights and the list of deprecated sources in the MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-predatory invoked by Special:AbuseFilter/891 is transcluded from {{Predatory open access source list}} - any veteran source handlers here who do not have admin rights, can pursue the same path and we could probably do the same for Special:AbuseFilter/869 as well. There are sound technical reasons to restrict edit filter access and interface page access, but this seems to be a solid way of helping a highly respected non-admin to engage in clueful management of source filters. I think that helping to get all this in place is my favourite thing I did on Wikipedia this year. Guy (help!) 00:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure what my getting of EFM rights has to do with Russian propaganda news here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The fact that if you can, others can too: maintaining the filters should not be and does not need to be an admin-only job - not least because you seem to be better at it than most of us! Guy (help!) 23:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, if I'm mentioned as the poster boy for non-admin EFM recruitment in general, then yes, that makes more sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason to restrict this to state sponsored sites? I posted above about Indian origin disinformation sites/fake media outlets, but the group which identified them, I think the same as some of those mentions above, says they don't have any indication they are state sponsored so I guess won't be covered by this proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I missed the comment above about infowars etc. IMO we could phrase this in a way to cover sites like the Russian ones or Indian ones, while not getting into disputes over the more classic ones like infowars or the plenty of other sites of a similar ilk, by focusing on whether they're part of a concerted campaign, whoever the owners, and mislead about who is behind them. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Nil Einne, For sure. Let's reduce the overhead for the obvious ones. Guy (help!) 23:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not sure I follow what exactly we're proposing to blanket-deprecate here. Let's take the following: RT, CGTN, PressTV, Granma, China Daily, Global Times, Sixth Tone. Would these fall within the definition given here? They are clearly state propaganda outlets. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
FOARP, RT is a state news org. Deprecating RT would require a separate RfC. This is designed to trap only those sites which are state-sponsored propaganda masquerading as independent news, and are identified by reliable sources as state-sponsored fake news or disinformation. That means we would be able to add them on sight with a note here, without having to go through a tiresome RfC for each and every case. It's a fast track for deprecation for sites that meet certain objective criteria. Guy (help!) 23:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It may be worth distinguishing between sources which are open about their status (like RT and the like) with those which which actively seek to deceive the reader (like the Indian farms under deceptive names).Nigel Ish (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
But RT is not always that open about how it operates - I mean, the entire switch to an acronym and it's entire marketing campaign in the US is pretty shy of admitting that it is owned and operated by the Russian state. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 18 December 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.

Wallethub listicles

Now and then I come across this credit card affiliate site on WP pages, usually in the form of "Jupiter was rated as the 12th Best Beach Town in America by WalletHub in 2018", "WalletHub named Dallas the fifth most-diverse city in the U.S. in 2018", "In 2015, WalletHub ranked Corpus Christi near the bottom, 138 out of 150 cities in America, for its low educational level and low-income opportunities" etc. Most of their listicles claim they used some methodology to produce the rankings, but for some of them ( example) this "methodology" was obviously architected to produce an already decided recommendation. In addition, the site isn't accessible to me in Europe (perhaps since they don't have any CC offers for my country?). Do we consider this a reliable source? DaßWölf 20:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Once again, we've confused reliability (do we trust the source to be accurate in what it says) with significance or importance. A list published by such a website is self-evidently perfectly reliably cited to itself. Would anyone doubt that the list itself is a reliable source for it's own content? No, this is not a reliability issue, it's a valid source per WP:ABOUTSELF, etc. HOWEVER, saying that, this is not a source which has significance or importance to be cited. We trust that, if we directly cite the list, that it is reliable to do so. However, who cares? There are sources whose lists are well respected, for example major well-cited sources such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies or 50 Greatest Players in NBA History or something like that, hold a different significance than "Random website creates a random list on random day". Simply put, this is a WP:UNDUE issue rather than a reliability issue. The list correctly reports the opinion of the author of the list. It's just that the author is not a well-respected expert on such a topic, so who cares? --Jayron32 13:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    Jayron32, yes, it's a WP:UNDUE and WP:REFSPAM problem not a RS problem. But I think we've fixed it anyway. Guy (help!) 14:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    That's true, Jayron32. I asked the wrong question but luckily got the answer to the right one :) DaßWölf 15:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Would like a survey on the reliability of One America News Network. There was a previous discussion, but it would be important to have a more established conclusion through a RfC for WP:RSP.

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Thank you.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Survey: One America News Network

  • Option 4: deprecate. Runs conspiracy theories and made-up nonsense - should never be used for anything, should be generally prohibited and removed where presently found. Though - before we do an RFC - where has this been coming up as an issue of late? - David Gerard (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply OANN has both broken investigative stories and also has run with things that turned out to be false. Also has clear bias. Use with extreme caution on political stories (I could see this bleeding into option 3.)MaximumIdeas (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • What investigative stories that it broke are you thinking of? - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
      • they often have access and connections in the White House, and break stories that way. Examples:[1][2][3]. Though again, they should absolutely be used with caution for the reasons already discussed. MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
        • That's not a good recommendation. If they are acting as a direct conduit for Trump in the Putin>>>Trump disinformation pipeline, that's not good and makes them unreliable. Russian disinformation flows from Putin/Russia to the treasonously credulous Trump ("Putin told me"). They would be aiding and abetting Russia's continued interference. Any source that knowingly and uncritically repeats Trump's nonsense, lies, and conspiracy theories is by definition an unreliable source. If that's what they are doing, then deprecate them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
          • You're entitled to your opinions about Russia and the US. Doesn't change that they have first-hand access to US government sources. MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
            • I think you mean they are used by members of the U.S. government to push false narratives into the public sphere that those individuals want put out there. Being a mouthpiece for propaganda doesn't make one reliable. --Jayron32 18:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
              • In the refs cited above they are not being "a mouthpiece for propaganda" but rather breaking new info that is not inherently favorable to the US government. At any rate, we both agree that they should not be an RS (option 1) for various reasons stated.MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No action: As a publication whose main purpose is to publish false information for political ends, it should not be used as a source for anything. If as MaximumIdeas says they have broken investigative stories (and I would like to see evidence of that), then those stories will be reported in reliable sources. I don't see though the purpose of singling out this unreliable source among the billions of unreliable websites. TFD (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Completely unacceptable source. Frequently promotes conspiracy theories, falsehoods, and makes stuff up. See Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Per TFD, I have no idea why we need a second discussion. It's not like the letters RFC are some kind of magic double special discussion. There was a discussion before, consensus clearly established it was unreliable. We don't need a second discussion to establish the same thing. Yes, it's unreliable. No one should ever use it. You knew that. What else do we need to do? --Jayron32 15:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: @The Four Deuces: Per WP:RSP "For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard." Like what is said in the initial notice, this is to determine an established conclusion, more for others than it is for myself. So, thank you for your concerns.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Alright. Well, you got my answer. It's shit. Don't use it. --Jayron32 16:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • That is reasonable. OANN has only been brought to RSN once before, where editors decisively found it unreliable.[54] The discussion was started in response to one IP claiming it was rs. Seems like we're swatting a gnat with a cruise missile. TFD (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Seems to have a very poor rep.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Purely a propaganda channel that pushes falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and barely-recycled Russian disinformation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • If you have any evidence that they push Russian disinformation, it'd be good if you could share that.MaximumIdeas (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
      • There is quite a bit of smoke, if not fire per the references already in our One America News Network article regarding Russia. X1\ (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 seems obvious, per the earlier discussion, this discussion, and my own observations over time. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 this news organisation has a fascinating relationship with facts. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • LOL. X1\ (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4, unless you believe there is a California bill banning the sale of Bibles, WaPo paid people to accuse Roy Moore of sexual misconduct, Seth Rich was murdered so he wouldn't testify against Hillary Clinton, etc. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 - use with caution as with all news sources per our PAGs, especially now that we are learning previously published claims by RS have been disproven by the IG Report and by Barr in interviews, and that some of the questionable sources that were accused of publishing conspiracy theories were actually closer to the facts - such as Russian collusion, and the Steele dossier for starters. This all falls to WP:RECENTISM and what appears to be a systemic bias. Let's not be so quick to condemn based on speculation and unproven theories. Atsme Talk 📧 18:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Nothing has been disproven by Barr in interviews and I haven't seen any of the goofy conspiracy stories proven. This is the danger of using sources like this. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Atsme on this solution. O3000, the IG report in particular disproved many RS statements. We could go into them, but this is probably not the place for it. But it goes to show that some humility would be warranted in terms of declaring something a truth while there is vigorous disagreement from less-known outlets.MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


  • Comment - I'm not familiar with the source, and was wondering on what evidence has it been determined that it is not as reliable a source as say, MSNBC or CNN? Has there been a prior discussion about it that I've missed? Point me to the right place, please. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    The previous discussion is linked in the opening sentence; that discussion and the article on the OANN itself contain clear and unambiguous examples of them printing blatantly false statements and promoting false narratives. --Jayron32 18:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Jayron - several highly reputable sources have published and promoted blatantly false narratives for nearly 2 years. Opinions are just that - theories are also theories - what particular article stated facts that were disproven as what happened over the past 2 years regarding the Russian collusion theory that was proven false? Atsme Talk 📧 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry, this is not a discussion over any other source. If you have a specific source in mind you think needs to be deprecated, start a discussion on that source. THIS source prints blatantly false things repeatedly and as a matter of their regular operations, and should not be used. --Jayron32 18:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I think what Atsme points out is relevant in that it establishes that publishing a handful of inaccurate stories is clearly not by itself disqualifying, because RS outlets do as well.MaximumIdeas (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Provide the diffs that support "blatantly false" without an error correction and I'll change my iVote. Atsme Talk 📧 19:15, 20 December 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.


Is a reliable source and can articles contribute to notability of an organization? They seem to have an editor-in-chief and have professional paid editors.[1] Dwaro (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Its a blog, so no.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but with editorial oversight. Dwaro (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
And what does that mean? For example the "editorial" team also write articles (wp:SPS). Nor can I see any editorial policy as such, what I can see is a clear indication anyone can write for it (thus its a blog).Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Autopilot and Dwaro:, perhaps yous could explain what Slatersteven is asking better. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ By (2017-08-24). "We're Hiring". Hackaday. Retrieved 2019-12-19.


Is ThoughtCo. a RS for the topics related to social sciences? Puduḫepa 06:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes, no, maybe... I don't know? Can you repeat the question?
More detailed answer: They look like they're a tertiary pop science source. They would probably be better than nothing or better than an unreliable source but easily beat out by any specialist source such as a textbook from a university press. It would depend on what article is being cited, why it's being cited, and whether or not contrary reliable sources are found. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Marginally reliable. ThoughtCo is operated by Dotdash (RSP entry), which used to be known as before it split into a large number of subject-oriented sites. It's an acceptable source for uncontroversial content, but I wouldn't use it for anything extraordinary. — Newslinger talk 17:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Brexit – Are we allowed to cite peer-reviewed research?

An editor on the Brexit page is arguing that the following sources fail WP:RS and that it is WP:OR to cite academic research (which happens to be a common refrain on the Brexit talk page). The editor also argues that the research is not credible because "these studies are usually done to try to support a pre-determined hypothesis":

  • Research has shown that the Leave vote tended to be greater in areas which had lower incomes and high unemployment, a strong tradition of manufacturing employment, and in which the population had fewer qualifications.[1] It also tended to be greater where there was a large flow of Eastern European migrants (mainly low-skilled workers) into areas with a large share of native low-skilled workers.[1] Those in lower social grades (especially the 'working class') were more likely to vote Leave, while those in higher social grades (especially the 'upper middle class') more likely to vote Remain.[2][3][4] Studies have linked economic decline,[5] high rates of suicides and drug-related deaths,[6] and austerity reforms introduced in 2010[7] to support for Leave in the Brexit referendum.


  1. ^ a b Sascha O Becker, Thiemo Fetzer, Dennis Novy. "Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis". Economic Policy, Volume 32, Issue 92, 1 October 2017, pp. 601–650. Quotes: "We find that fundamental characteristics of the voting population were key drivers of the Vote Leave share, in particular, their education profiles, their historical dependence on manufacturing employment as well as low income and high unemployment. At the much finer level of wards within cities, we find that areas with deprivation in terms of education, income and employment were more likely to vote Leave. [...] A larger flow of migrants from Eastern Europe reaching a local authority area with a larger share of unqualified people or a larger share of manufacturing workers is also associated with a larger Vote Leave share".
  2. ^ Noel Dempsey & Neil Johnston. "Political disengagement in the UK: who is disengaged?". House of Commons briefing paper. House of Commons Library, 14 September 2018. p. 23
  3. ^ Hobolt, Sara B. (20 October 2016). "The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent" (PDF). Journal of European Public Policy. 23 (9): 1259–1277. doi:10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785. ISSN 1350-1763.
  4. ^ Becker, Sascha O.; Fetzer, Thiemo; Novy, Dennis (1 October 2017). "Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive district-level analysis". Economic Policy. 32 (92): 601–650. doi:10.1093/epolic/eix012. ISSN 0266-4658.
  5. ^ Carreras, Miguel (1 December 2019). "'What do we have to lose?': Local economic decline, prospect theory, and support for Brexit". Electoral Studies. 62: 102094. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2019.102094. ISSN 0261-3794.
  6. ^ Koltai, Jonathan; Varchetta, Francesco Maria; McKee, Martin; Stuckler, David (2019-12-19). "Deaths of Despair and Brexit Votes: Cross-Local Authority Statistical Analysis in England and Wales". American Journal of Public Health: e1–e6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305488. ISSN 0090-0036.
  7. ^ Fetzer, Thiemo (2019). "Did Austerity Cause Brexit?". American Economic Review. 109 (11): 3849–3886. doi:10.1257/aer.20181164. ISSN 0002-8282.

Note that some of the sources here are literally the top journal in their field, such as the American Economic Review (arguably the top journal in economics) and the American Journal of Public Health (arguably the top journal in public health). The text in question mirrors the language of the sources, so there's no misreporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

given its contentiousness nature full attribution might be best. Its a very hot political subject, and unless we cite all studies I am dubious about saying (in effect) "all studies show".Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The text does not say nor suggest "all studies show". It links to findings in the studies that I'm aware of, and I will add more when I do encounter more. There is also nothing to suggest these sources have been cherry-picked, and if anything, supports the pro-Brexit narrative (I'm apparently supposed to be anti-Brexit judging by what some editors on the Brexit talk page claim) that Leave is driven by a working class revolve motivated economic anxiety and a sense of being left behind economically. Wikipedia needs more peer-reviewed research, not less, and it's not a reasonable burden at all to say that the only research we're allowed to add is research that has been covered by secondary sources. The end result of such restrictions is that Wikipedia would contain drastically less research. Which would be absolutely horrendous (except to those who are distrustful of science and expertise) because, and I quote the WP:RS instructions, "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Odd then that other sections say things like "Studies suggest" rather then the far more equivocal "Research has shown" , or to directly attribute findings.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: your representation of my arguments is totally untrue. I have not questioned the reliability of any of those sources, I have not said that to cite academic research is OR and I did not argue that the research is not credible. Please apologise, withdraw your comments and stop wasting everyone's time here. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Arguing that academic articles "are the primary sources for that research", essentially is, as Snoogansnoogans says, saying that almost all academic research cannot be cited since it is all "primary". Peer-reviewed academic articles analyze primary sources, and that analysis is secondary. Citing that directly is not OR. Now if one were to analyze the statements in an peer-reviewed article to state something that wasn't in the original article, that would be OR. But that is not what you are arguing.
Looking at one of the sources cited above, [55]: the secondary source here is analyzing the primary sources, that being the statistics on the death-rates. The conclusion of this analysis is "Worsening mortality correlated with Brexit votes." which can be cited.
And I don't even know what to say about you asking Snoogans to educate himself on what a hypothesis is when you fundamentally misunderstand what the role of a hypothesis in science is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Galobtter: sure a reliable secondary source can be used to describe analyses of primary sources: that way the analyses are supported and not OR - and that is exactly what I am arguing. The use of arbitrary primary sources, such as has been the case here, is to fly in the face of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. for those who are interested, what I was arguing against was:
  • the unsourced selection (cherry-picking) of the papers (the use of primary rather than secondary sourcing) to present in the article
  • and thus the undue weight given to studies that were not covered by secondary sources
  • the wording of some of the summaries of the papers in the article
I was not arguing against the content of the papers themselves. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) DeFacto, I am having trouble reconciling your claim above with these edits:[56][57] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: those diffs illustrate exactly what I am saying above. Please explain where you think there is a contradiction so I can clarify, if necessary. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
The statement "I have not questioned the reliability of any of those sources" directly contradicts the statement "these studies are usually done to try to support a pre-determined hypothesis", directly contradicts putting "studies" in quotation marks, and directly contradicts deleting the sources. I see below that you are now pretending that scare quotes do not exist or that you did not use scare quotes when you clearly did. I believe that your behavior has been inappropriate and that you are now playing word games. This is the last response you will get from me. I have no desire to engage in a long discussion about what the words you write mean. Please don't ping me again. I do not wish to interact with you in any way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Guy, how do you explain these statements in the reports then?
  • From Becker, et al.: "In this section, we discuss prominent hypotheses that have been proposed to explain the EU referendum result and how we try to capture them in our empirical analysis."
  • From Hobolt: "The advantage of this particular dataset is not only the impressive sample size (30,895 respondents), but also the number of variables included in the questionnaire that allows us to investigate all of the hypothesized factors.
  • From Carreras: "The Brexit referendum confronted British voters with a choice that could have profound consequences for the British economy in a context of high uncertainty. Drawing on important lessons from prospect theory, I argue that citizens who were in the domain of economic losses were more likely to take a risk and vote in favor of Brexit. On the contrary, I hold that citizens who were in the domain of economic gains tended to be more risk averse and were more likely to support ‘Remain’ in the referendum. Using data from several waves of the British Election Study 2014–2019 Internet Panel, I find strong support for these theoretical expectations."
They support exactly what I said with respect to how hypotheses are used. And no, I am not questioning the reliability of the study reports, just the way they are being used in the article. And no, I am not playing "word games", I am arguing against the inclusion of content which I honestly believe not to be policy compliant and I am sorry you are unable to appreciate that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Hypothesis-testing =/= scholars "[trying] to support a pre-determined hypothesis". The latter suggests that scholars come up with a conclusion and manipulate the data to make it fit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: from the hypothesis article: "In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation." The full quote from my post: "these studies are usually done to try to support a pre-determined hypothesis" They are saying the same thing, no matter what you would apparently like to believe. You sound like you are arguing that black is white. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@DeFacto: No, not in any way. A little later the hypothesis article says A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it.. Sometimes a disproved hypothesis is just as interesting as a confirmed one. ― Hebsen (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Hebsen: I cannot see what you think the difference is between that and what I meant. The point is that the hypothesis comes before the study - and that then supports or contradicts the hypothesis. But this dancing on a pinhead about what "hypothesis" means is a distraction from the main discussion, which is about whether the way these studies have been used complies with all the appropriate Wiki policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
(1) You literally said, "these studies are usually done to try to support a pre-determined hypothesis", which again is about their purported unreliability and biasedness. (2) In your edit summary, you put "studies" in quotation marks to suggest that they were not actually studies or reliable.[58] (3) No evidence at all has been presented to support the notion that these studies have been cherry-picked (the editor has been repeatedly asked to substantiate this claim but refuses to do so - another common pattern among the "DELETE ALL RESEARCH" crowd on the Brexit talk page). (4) You stated that this is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH more than half-a-dozen times in your edit summary and on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: replying to each numbered point in turn:
1. What I said is supported by the definition of 'hypothesis', the Wiki article and the papers themselves as I showed in this post
2. I put them in quotes because they are, literally, studies
3. I have not refused to substantiate any such thing, or can you provide a diff to prove that I have? The fact that they were selected by a Wiki editor, and not because a reliable secondary source was commenting on them, is evidence that they were cherry-picked. Or how else are we to assume they were they found or stumbled upon?
4. Yes, and I still believe that the material added to the article concerning these sources was OR. That doesn't mean I think there is anything unreliable about the content of those sources, why would it?
-- DeFacto (talk). 20:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Can't understand what's going on here. Peer-reviewed research is (in most cases) a much better source for such analyses than journalism, because the researchers are experts in their fields and so are the reviewers. Journalists are usually not experts on what they're writing about. Nothing in what Snoogans quoted failed due weight and I cannot see any evidence of cherrypicking. Are studies that come to the opposite conclusions extant but being ignored? As for primary vs. secondary, it would be even better if academic review articles existed on this topic, but you might have to wait 10–20 years. I don't see how news coverage of a study would make it necessarily more important or worthy of being mentioned—academic merit and media interest are not closely related. It would be better to look at the caliber of the journal and reputation of the authors. buidhe 06:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • These sources seem to me to be quite proper, and the content is an accurate reflection, but is this really a source reliability question? It looks more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of one or more people who simply don't want these facts included. Guy (help!) 10:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Snooganssnoogans and others. These are clearly RS's. MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've never in my Wikipedia editing experienced as many instances of multiple editors edit-warring non-RS into an article and refusing to recognize that punditry, op-eds from obscure outlets and comments plucked out of tv show transcripts do not count as reliable sources. When POV-pushers on the right try to include such content (e.g. op-eds from the Daily Wire, Daily Caller, Fox Nation), there is usually a slew of editors who revert it and an absence of right-wing POV pushers who seek to reintroduce the poorly sourced content, but this page is something completely else. The first step in terms of dealing with the problems on the page revolves around a fundamental disagreement over what is and isn't a reliable source. So, can I please get confirmation here that:

  • 1. "Common Dreams" is not a RS
  • 2. "In These Times" is not a RS
  • 3. "Paste Magazine" is not a RS
  • 4. "Current Affairs" is not a RS
  • 5. "Rising with Krystal and Saagar", a web-show hosted by The Hill, is not a RS
  • 6. Op-eds are not RS
  • 7. Comments made by non-experts on tv shows, without any secondary coverage, are not RS and do not meet WP:DUE

And that just because an opinion editorial gets published somewhere by someone does not mean it meets WP:DUE and deserves a whole paragraph on a Wikipedia page. Like two-thirds of this Wikipedia page are random op-eds by people complaining that their favorite candidate Bernie Sanders is not getting good media coverage. This content stands in contrast to the peer-reviewed research, academic analyses and actual RS content on the page which does not substantiate that there is media bias against Sanders. The page is incredibly unbalanced, but the page is being held hostage and it's impossible to make constructive commonsensical edits to the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Could you provide information about the reliability off individual organizations (1-4)? The opinion by 5-7 seems like it should be attributed at best.
This is all that I have found:
So, there is a lot to take apart here and it would help if we could take a look at these sources individually.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
These sources should generally be avoided per WP:BLPSOURCES. Sanders is running a national campaign, so there are plenty of mainstream sources covering his campaign. Opinion articles should only be used if other (reliable) sources have cited it. From the policy: "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." - MrX 🖋 21:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Articles such as this illustrate the depths to which Wikipedia has fallen. Instead of an encyclopedia, it has turned into a PR medium for minor actors and musicians, trivial events, and political jostling. And no, those sources aren't suitable for an encyclopedia article, but they're more than suited for what that article is. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree that the reliability of sources is not necessarily something best done in large chunks concerning a contentious topic. If you are suggesting that POV pushing is more difficult to deal with on Wikipedia when it comes to the left rather than the right (full disclosure: if anything I'm centrist, ever-so-slightly center-left, or most often just someone off on the z-axis somewhere on US politics) then yes. I have made various demographics based arguments to explain the issue. I can rehash them if anyone is interested. GMGtalk 23:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd almost go as far to say we need to delete that article as there's no way to practically maintain it since too many editors are trying to insert poor sources for a article that is about media and politics -- if there was a equivalent of MEDRS for these types of articles, that would be needed here. Instead, assembling a number of ancedotes over the campaigns is going to make for a piecemeal topic that is going to encourage bad sources from being added. There is good sources that a reasonable summary of the media biases from each his runs can be included in the respective campaign articles, but these should be broad summaries, minimizing the focus on any singular event (and thus the likelihood to pull opinion pieces). --Masem (t) 03:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's complete madness that the article exists in the first place (the whole topic can be summarized in 2-3 paragraphs or less on the main Sanders article and on his campaign pages). There was a chaotic AfD with lots of canvassing that resulted in "no consensus" on whether to delete it. The page also creates a precedent to create a similar page for every single major presidential candidate (most of the academic analyses and RS content in the article above is about media coverage in general during the 2016 campaign, with implications for bias regarding Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Jeb Bush - all of whom have also accused the media of bias). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion on media bias WRT Sanders. If media bias toward a campaign does exist; it would require excellent sources to document. These are clearly not excellent sources. It’s no surprise that an AfD failed. Perhaps if all the poor sources were removed, the article would be trimmed to the point it would be AfDable and what content remains merged. O3000 (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
To go farther, taking WP:NOR as guiding: I would expect this to be a topic from scholars on the media (eg Columbia Journalism Review, Pew Research Center) that have looked into this issue in depth, and its going to fully be in retrospective, in that we should be able to talk about this broadly for the 2016 run in summary if such sources exists, and can't touch the 2020 election cycle yet. But instead, we're getting what is effectively a mix of proseline and "X in popular culture" lists - listing of events (but not summaries) of events where one or two people claim media bias against Bernie. This is basically a SYNTH article for that reason, and we really really should delete it if we cannot get better scholarly sourcing on this. --Masem (t) 15:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Lets point out the complete misrepresentation of the article currently at discussion by addressing it in the section by its old name. The article is no longer about bias. It is about media coverage entirely regarding the campaigns, of which there have been several reports regarding positive and negative coverage. This isn't about SYNTH anymore. There are reliable reports regarding coverage and not about trying to point at an idea that is not explicitly stated in the reference.--WillC 15:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
So a major presidential candidate from the two big parties gets media coverage. So? Is that really a notable topic? Too many editors forget that RECENTISM tells us to write for the long-term, not the short-term, and stuff like how a campaign was covered in the media - unless it is identifying things like recognized media bias - is mostly routine. --Masem (t) 16:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You know, an unseasoned editor would fall for that open offer and say no. I, however, came from the most contentious project on this site outside of politics where I had to deal with hundreds of ips and 3 years of arguments over the same policy. Thankfully I became a bit more seasoned. What I would say is yes, that would make it notable. There is a problem on this site where people have an objection to articles existing just because they don't want articles to exist. The Afd was full of people complaining with the whataboutism excuse that other articles would be made. WP:N is pretty clear with its guidelines that what establishing notability is Significant coverage, reliable sources, secondary sources, independence, and presumed merit. Sanders media coverage] has almost 27 million results. Seems like a very talked about subject. Certainly for a topic that is primarily about issues between mainstream media and alternative media. There are sources on both sides that both claim and dispel there being any bias. That alone provides notability for the subject. It has always been that simple. Not agreeing with the subject has nothing to do with it.--WillC 16:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The bigger problem that these American political articles have is Tit for Tat and quote spam. Most American political figures articles are a mishmash of quotes and back and forth.--Moxy 🍁 14:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to point out the reason that Snoogan is here is I have brought up issues with his editing patterns over at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#Recent editing about issues with WP:TE and WP:Cherrypicking. Particularly this user has continued to push arguments that are not substantiated by actual policy. He just committed 29 consecutive edits including removing sourced information and inaccurately stating what sources say. He continues to act like opinion articles are not reliable sources and lists any source he does not agree as simple an "opinion" or a "pundit". I have even had to list to the actual definition of pundit and he still doesn't understand what that word seems to mean, he thinks it means "unreliable by default". The article isn't about Sanders, it is about the political campaigns, which to me is iffy when it comes to BLP because it isn't particularly about a person but moreso a political media issue. He seems to have an own issue going on as an article analysis lists him as the most active editor in the article and is actively seeking deletion of the article. As such, his recent edits and comments seem to come into conflict with issues at the previously mentioned policies such as in "Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources", "Repeating the same argument without convincing people", "Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others", "Crusading against a specific POV", "Seeing editing as being about taking sides", and "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." As for his claims, I have addressed them repeatedly over and over and so have several other editors.--WillC 15:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've come to the same conclusion that Masem has: the article should be deleted, because the topic inherently lends itself to POV pushing, or as Tom put it above, "political jostling". pbp 16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall that being among the reasons for deletion at WP:DEL-REASON.--WillC 16:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Part of the argument above is that it fails #7. Also it could be deleted (or merged or redirected) by #5 as a fork of Bernie himself. It may fail #9 because Bernie is a BLP. pbp 16:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I would recommend skimming the AfD to people contending that the article should be deleted. I'm not aware of a criticism issued by those supporting deletion that hasn't been in some way addressed (replied to without further contention) by other editors. As Snoogans said, it was chaotic and had canvassees from Bernie-supporting and -opposing communities alike – but that doesn't invalidate the many inputs there by long-time editors (the majority of whom opposed deletion – for what little it's worth). Finally, it's true just nuking the whole article would be the easy way out for most people involved, but then that would create a precedent where contentious topics are not allowed to be covered, and that to revoke the right of existence from an article simply requires amassing enough tendentious editors to criticize an article, draw 'fire' from inexperienced editors from the other side of the argument and then use their misguided POV-pushing retaliations as further evidence. Selvydra (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Paste magazine is a reliable source as determined by WikiProject Albums for music and other media Atlantic306 (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    Atlantic306, out of curiosity could I get a link to that info? MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Will look for a link but I remember it being accepted as an rs at a number of AFD/s on musicians and albums by editors including admin such as @Michig:, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Its listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      Atlantic306, thanks for the info MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm sure Paste is fine for albums. It is not suitable for serious political or media analysis. One of the Paste articles in question was little more than a superficial criticism of Jennifer Rubin. That does not pass as a cogent analysis of media bias against Sanders. There is no excuse for using marginal sources like this. - MrX 🖋 14:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Is it? I don't remember that part of WP:RS where is says reliable sources are only good for one topic. That is like saying CNN is only good for politics but not for the Grammy's. Funny you just said it was a marginal source again when you were just shown it is a generally acceptable reliable source by a project. Seems like not refusal to accept arguments and adjust. I think that is a problem in TE.--WillC 16:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: I don't see any special problems with the The Hill's Rising show, one of the two bipartisan hosts is notable (= Krystal Ball exists), and the site itself is listed as reliable on WP:RS/P with ten references. I don't always agree with what they say, but that's as it should be for all "green" WP:RS/P entries I care about. – (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: I'm bringing info from what multiple editors have told me at Wikiproject Canada, but Op-eds can be used. It's literally in the RS description : - MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Note : they need to be attributed though. MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think some things are getting lost here. Just saying e.g. "Paste Magazine is not RS" is going to be confusing because it is a reliable source for some things. Likewise saying op-eds aren't reliable is going to lead to the usual "op eds aren't necessarily unreliable" tangents. The important question here is whether they're reliable for this purpose. A standard, frustrating refrain in these sorts of matters is that because RS doesn't prohibit op eds, people assume they can always be included. That brings us to WP:WEIGHT. Just because someone wrote something doesn't mean it needs to be included even if it's attributed and even if it's typically considered reliable. For a subject like media bias, which everybody writes about (as in political magazines, tabloid newspapers, newspapers of record, gossip websites, propaganda outlets, peer reviewed academic journals, books published by academic presses, etc.), and about which every op ed will conform to fit his/her own particular candidate, the question is where the cutoff is for weight, and unless an op-ed itself receives a lot of recognition, it's sitting at the bottom of the barrel. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites That has been a problem. Editors have just wanted things removed and are unwilling to discuss terms of things. It is an all or nothing battle over there. All op-eds must be removed. All sources must be removed. We have even had to argue over how many times FAIR can be used as a source. Apparently 2 was too many to some editors. Personally, I've quoted policy and it doesn't seem to matter. Under RS, opinion articles are reliable. Under RS, biased articles are reliable too. Doesn't matter, they still repeat the same arguments over and over.--WillC 16:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
First, regarding editor behavior: I think editors working in fast-moving highly contentious areas like American politics get exasperated with the amount of work done and amount of POV-pushing that goes on, leading to erring on the side of simpler edits. Thus "no op eds" rather than talking through/explaining why each one isn't fit to include in articles where discussion will inevitably lead to those op eds being removed. (I say this without having looked at the article history -- just based on this section and editing histories at many other political articles). It's not ideal, no, and if it becomes a behavioral problem, though, that can be dealt with at ANI. What matters most is making those edits against consensus.
Regarding Under RS, opinion articles are reliable. Under RS, biased articles are reliable too. - there's a world of difference between "opinion articles are reliable" and what the guideline actually says: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", with an explanation about reliability for someone's opinion as opposed to statements of fact. There's also a big difference between "it's not unreliable" and "it should be included". An op ed can be reliable for a person's opinion, yes, but not every person's opinion should be included. An op ed by a media studies scholar whose op ed has been written about by a bunch of other publications is not the same as the opinion of some pundit in a political blog. WP:WEIGHT matters, too. For many subjects, we shouldn't be using people's opinions because there are far better sources out there and far more coverage of aspects that carry much more weight. Doesn't mean those opinions aren't reliable for anything -- just that they shouldn't be included. I wouldn't go so far as to say we shouldn't include any op eds in a subject like this, but the likelihood of an op ed being among the best sources and most significant perspectives is pretty low. Still, it's possible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed on the first paragraph. Editors want to move fast instead of slow down. I came from WP:PW and we had alot of that type of behavior. As for the second paragraph, RS clearly states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." for the WP:NEWSORG section. Thats my only issue there as they are objectively reliable, just not for factual information.--WillC 17:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Paste Magazine is only an RS for music, not for politics. Others have correctly noted that their news coverage consists of a small handful of opinionated writers. For an outside opinion, I see that MediaBiasFactCheck also notes they are left-biased: --MaximumIdeas (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)