Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 175 ← Archive 180 Archive 181 Archive 182 Archive 183 Archive 184 Archive 185

Is a medical examiner's report a reliable source for a cause of death?

There has been a great deal of dispute on the

Death of Eric Garner
article about whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source for Eric Garner's cause of death.

In short, an NYPD officer applied a restraining technique to Garner's neck prior to his death. The ME report states the following as the cause of death:

Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police

Numerous reliable sources (e.g., the Associated Press, The New York Times, Time, and NBC New York) have reported the medical examiner's conclusion. Additionally, in a

surprising exercise
, an editor contacted the medical examiner's office regarding the "choke hold" language to ensure that it appears in the report as claimed by reliable sources. The ME's office purportedly confirmed that it did in an email to that editor.

To my knowledge, no other medical expert has issued a finding as to the cause of Eric Garner's death. While some non-experts have offered their opinions that the restraining technique was a "headlock" and not a "choke hold," no other medical expert has (again, to my knowledge) contradicted the ME's finding that the compression of Eric Garner's neck contributed to his death. An editor has suggested that the medical examiner's conclusion be considered "disputed" due to these non-expert opinions.

My questions are as follows: under these circumstances, is the medical examiner's report a reliable source for Eric Garner's cause of death? If so, should the report be prefaced by the word "disputed," based on non-expert opinions?

NOTE: There is a pending discussion at

Dyrnych (talk
) 18:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that in general, a medical examiners opinion alone, is or should be considered a reliable enough source for cause of death that we can flatly state that cause as a fact. But if there is significant dispute and doubt about ME's opinion, even if only by notable non-experts, then the examiner's cause should not be flatly stated as a fact, and the dispute should be noted along side the examiner's opinion, though perhaps with due weight. Usually when persons are accused of causing a death, the cause itself is not disputed, only the identity of the person who caused it. When there is a dispute about the cause, the opinion of a single medical examiner is not considered conclusive. In these cases of unarmed deaths, the families and even the federal government, often commission a second autopsy, because they don't think one examiner's opinion should be relied upon to establish the facts.
In this case, there is the additional complication that reliable sources have reported the ME's opinion of the cause, and I am having a hard time getting across the idea that there is a difference between a reliable source confirming the truth of what the opinion of the medical examiner is, and the reliable source concluding that the medical examiner's cause of death, was in fact the true and correct cause of death. The reliable sources in this case obviously don't have access to the information needed to establish one way or the other whether the ME's conclusion was correct, because the autopsy is still secret. They report the ME's conclusion, but they don't make their own independent conclusion. Likewise, Wikipedia should report the ME's cause finding, but not flatly state that finding as a correct fact. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
That argument makes no sense to me. Lady Gaga is a notable non-expert. So are Carlos Chavez and Roberto Benigni. By that logic, we'd put their opinions up alongside the MD who is officially designated to examine and determine the cause of death? This argument is absurd on its face. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. The ME's finding/ruling/decision (not opinion) carries significant weight. Unless the ME's ruling is overturned, for example, by a court, it should be considered a fact. This is amplified by the fact that reliable sources have cited the ME's ruling, which lends credibility per
    WP:FRINGE viewpoint.- MrX
    20:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO - If you put only clowns up against a medical examiner, then that gives the dispute the appearance of being ridiculous. But that's just a logical falacy. It's not just clowns disputing this. The accused, the police unions, pundits with audiences in the millions, martial arts experts, and a significant fraction of the Wikipedia editors of this story. The not chokehold theory may be a minority theory, but it is not a fringe theory.
@MrX - It is not wise to assume the truth of a disputed fact based just on the opinion of one person, not even an expert. It would not be good for Wikipedia's reputation to have the policy of assuming disputed facts based on the opinion of a single expert. That reliable sources and even I myself have cited the ME's conclusion, doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge significant dispute and doubt.
@Siafu - There is particular reason to question the ME's report. That the chokehold/headlock was only 15.3 seconds and Garner was still talking afterward are significant reasons to question it. They're not definitive reasons but they're significant. The contents of the report have not been verified through other means. A single expert only barely qualifies as a reliable source, and the general rule against questioning reliable sources goes out the window when there is significant dispute.
It's also important to remember in this debate, that the ME is an expert in cause of death, but I see no reason to believe that he is an expert or reliable source on the linguistic definition of the term chokehold. NYPD policy only defines chokeholds as that which restricts air, not blood. The ME actually ruled one of the causes of death to be "compression of neck". That doesn't necessarily imply significant impeding of air supply. It may only be restriction of blood flow. We don't know if the ME was using the same definition of chokehold. I don't consider the ME to be an expert or reliable source on that matter. Mindbuilder (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
A single expert does indeed qualify as a reliable source, per wikipedia policy. Being just one person does not ipso facto impact the reliability of a source. siafu (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable, and everything that
    talk
    ) 00:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that the opinions disputing the medical examiner's report are particularly low-quality, as they mostly come from political pundits and parties who are directly interested in the outcome of the case (e.g., the police union). I'm not aware of any medical experts who dispute the cause of death, even without having performed their own autopsies.
Dyrnych (talk
) 02:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

An M.E.'s reports is supposed to contain his expert opinions as to fact - but do not establish those opinions as fact per se. The language used should be:

The M.E.'s report gave the cause of death as ..."

and not

The cause of death was ...

Just as we handle all opinions of experts or persons notable in the field. We do not and ought not assert infallibility to any such opinions on any topic. "Cause of death" is not the same as "weight" or "height" as being an empirical statement of fact. Collect (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@
Dyrnych (talk
) 02:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The medical examiner isn't the ultimate expert, he is just one, and one that is often not considered authoritative by the families and even the federal government who commission second or third autopsies, because they don't consider the ME to be reliable. We have a rather unusual situation amongst general expert situations here, because in most subject areas, other experts could render an opinion if the opinion of one expert was questionable. But in this case, it is not that all the experts agree with the ME, it is that no other expert can dispute the ME, because they don't have access to the body or even the autopsy report. An expert opinion should be considered even less authoritative when it can't be closely examined and challenged. Secret reasoning and evidence should be especially suspect at Wikipedia. Sources based on secret reasoning should either be considered not reliable, or barely reliable, and described as disputed when there is significant dispute, even among non-experts. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Mindbuilder: That's all your OR. If there is only the official autopsy by the qualified professional who is designated NYC Medical Examiner, that constitutes the available fact. For this reason, the Medical Examiner's report has been cited by every RS which discusses the matter. There's no basis for WP editors to speculate about counterfactual scenarios. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Mindbuilder: can you provide support for the claim that families and the federal government (1) often seek alternatives to the medical examiner's report (2) because they don't consider the ME's report to be authoritative?
Dyrnych (talk
) 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Many here are still mixing up the difference between a reliable source reporting somebody else's conclusion, and the reliable source asserting the conclusion themselves. For example, many reliable sources have reported that the FBI says that their experts have decided that there is conclusive evidence that North Korea perpetrated the attack on Sony Studios. Does that mean the reliable sources believe that the FBI's evidence is conclusive? No, they're just reporting the FBI's claim. Can we state it flatly as a fact on Wikipedia that the FBI's evidence is conclusive? No. We can report the FBI's claim, because the reliable sources do, but we can't flatly state as fact that North Korea is responsible. As another example, many reliable sources have reported that Pantaleo said he did not choke Garner. Does that mean we can assert it as a fact in Wikipedia that Pantaleo did not choke Garner because reliable sources reported that claim of fact? Obviously not.
On the other hand, many reliable sources have flatly stated as fact that Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck. They don't say Pantaleo appeared to put his arm around Garner's neck. They don't say that the medical examiner concluded Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck. They just flatly state it as a fact that they have determined to be true to their satisfaction. That is the conclusion of a secondary source that has viewed the primary source of the video, and found it to be reliable enough and clear enough, that the fact doesn't need to be couched in terms of the opinions or claims of experts or others. When the reliable sources report it as an apparent chokehold, that is their implicit recognition that it might not be what it appears, and that they do not find enough reliable evidence to simply flatly state that it was in fact a chokehold, and that the chokehold caused the death. The reliable sources are not just saying, that since the ME claims it, then its a reliable fact without significant doubt. The reliable sources are recognizing the debate as significant enough to be worth mentioning, and so should we. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think your FBI analogy is relevant, and the logic of second paragraph is a bit too tortured and convoluted for me to follow. I notice that a lot of people are telling you pretty much the same thing, here and in other venues, and you
don't appear to be listening. MastCell Talk
17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable source of facts If the ME report says something, and there's no other reliable source that says differently, the ME's report can be used as unattributed fact - that, in fact Garner died of the chokehold. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Acceptable primary source One of the situations where it is acceptable to use a primary source is when it is the subject of extensive secondary sources, as is the case here. It is probably also acceptable as a primary source in less controversial cases, even when not supported by secondary sources, as there is no weight issue in including cause of death, which is a de-facto part of any article about a deceased individual. CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The huge difference between the reliability of experts here and in the global warming debate, is that with global warming, thousands of experts have been able to review the openly available evidence and reasoning. In this case we have just one expert with secret evidence and reasoning.
I'm perplexed as to why almost nobody is getting or even mentioning the difference between a reliable source reporting someone else's conclusion, and adopting a conclusion of fact as their own. Was the last paragraph of my 8:44 post unclear as it was for MastCell? Mindbuilder (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reliable. The ME report is, in the vast majority of cases, going to be the most reliable source for the cause of death. It does not need to be in-text attributed unless other reliable sources disagree (for example, other expert opinions who have examined the evidence). Yobol (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Very Much Not Reliable. I have found some info that even surprises me. I think this changes our whole discussion. Above I had stated my opinion that the ME could be considered a reliable primary source to state findings of fact at least in cases of little dispute. But I didn't realize how low the standards of proof can be for an ME's findings. Now I realize I was wrong. We can never use an ME's opinion as flatly stated fact, at least not unless we have more info about the degree of certainty of the examiner's finding.
The "National Association of Medical Examiners" writes in "A Guide For Manner of Death Classification" at https://netforum.avectra.com/Public/DocumentGenerate.aspx?wbn_key=38c0f1d2-11ec-45c7-80ca-ff872d0b22bc&SITE=NAME

"In general, the certifier of death completes the cause-of-death section and attests that, to the best of the certifier’s knowledge, the person stated died of the cause(s) and circumstances reported on the death certificate. It is important to remember that these “facts” only represent the certifier’s opinion and are not written in stone or legally binding."

But it gets worse. It goes on:

Because the cause and manner of death are opinions, judgment is required to formulate

both for reporting on the death certificate. The degree of certainty required to classify the manner of death depends sometimes on the circumstances of the death. Although such issues will be discussed in further detail below, a general scheme of incremental “degrees of certainty” is as follows:

  • Undetermined (less than 50% certainty)
  • Reasonable medical or investigative probability (Greater than a 50:50 chance; more likely than not)
  • Preponderance of medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say about 70% or greater certainty)
  • Clear and convincing medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say 90% or greater certainty)
  • Beyond any reasonable doubt (essentially 100% certainty)
  • Beyond any doubt (100% certainty)

Seldom, for the purpose of manner-of-death classification, is “beyond a reasonable doubt” required as the burden of proof. In many cases, “reasonable probability” will suffice, but in other instances such as suicide, case law or prudence may require a “preponderance” of evidence—or in homicide—“clear and convincing evidence” may be required or recommended.

Notice that a finding of homicide MAY require a heightened standard of 90%. But that means that the finding MAY NOT require even 90% certainty! Given the definition of homicide that the Garner ME is using, I'd say the manner of death as homicide in this case may easily be in the beyond any reasonable doubt range. But for the cause of death, the ME may well be using the 70% "Preponderance of medical/investigative evidence" or even the 51% "Reasonable medical or investigative probability" standard! The ME may well have found a higher certainty. We don't know. But until we know, we can't state it as fact in Wikipedia. I have not seen any of the reliable sources state the degree of certainty of the ME's findings. And I think many of them, perhaps all of them, may have made the same mistaken assumption that we made, in thinking that the ME's opinion was something considerably more certain than 51%.
We need to modify the reliable sources guidelines to warn other Wikipedia editors that ME findings may be only 51% certain.
So what say you all now? Mindbuilder (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any idea where you found this or what you think its application to this case is, but let me quote you from page 2 (in a section entitled "Preface and Caveats") of the document you think disproves the reliability of medical examiners: "This book is a Guide. The recommendations contained herein are not standards and should not be used to evaluate the performance of a given certifier in a given case. Death certification and manner-of-death classification require judgment, and room must be allowed for discretion on a case by case basis." (emphasis mine). Also, this document is over twelve years old and it's entirely unclear that it has any application at all to a medical examination performed in 2014. Honestly, it seems like you are grasping at straws in your effort to hold sources to a standard not found in Wikipedia policy.
Dyrnych (talk
) 04:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
One further point: you're looking at the preponderance of the evidence standard as though it calls into doubt a particular conclusion. You want to guess what standard is used to establish facts in most civil litigation? Yup, preponderance of the evidence. So when we say as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice that someone is liable for a particular tort, we're saying that a trier of fact found that it was more likely than not (i.e., a greater than 50% chance) that that person committed that tort.
Dyrnych (talk
) 05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course the document is from the National Association of Medical Examiners website at http://thename.org Many of their sub pages are hosted on avectra.com. To find the document, go to thename.org, expand the "general info" tab on the left and select "Death Certification".
Are you seriously suggesting that a 51% degree of certainty is strong enough to flatly declare a fact in Wikipedia's voice? Mindbuilder (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point. These proceedings rely on a balance of evidence where 51% likelihood is sufficient for a finding of fact, unlike a criminal proceeding. TFD (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I am seriously suggesting that this document, by its own terms, has virtually no application here. It explicitly states that it is not providing standards. I understand that you oppose the inclusion of the medical examiner's report, but your actions and arguments have been extreme in doing so. Between actually contacting the medical examiner (thought there was no basis for disputing that the report was quoted properly), proposing that we consider it a non-RS based on this flimsy sort of "evidence," and considering the opinions of editors posted prior to your introduction of this "evidence" to be invalid, I suggest that you've drifted far away from policy and are just throwing things at the wall to see what will stick.
Dyrnych (talk
) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kind of curious on this one, but would news media really be a reliable secondary source in this question? Reporters wouldn't particularly have expertise in this area to evaluate the validity of the claim, but we would be looking to other experts to establish that. It would seem similar to how we rely on literature reviews to evaluate primary sources in scientific content rather than news articles. I'm not sure if we have sources like that though in this case.
talk
) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
We have reliable secondary sources that have unequivocally backed the medical examiner's ruling, for example Time. I don't think it's appropriate to cast a such a wide net and say that legal rulings are frequently found to be wrong and thus this one is not reliable. The evaluation of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York as a reliable source should be based on whether it has an extensive record of making rulings that are later found to be incorrect. Absent such a record, it's reasonable to assume that they know what they're doing. Of course, this is all moot, because we have secondary sources that corroborate the primary one.- MrX 13:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Now they're forum shopping at
    talk
    ) 00:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't believe it took me this long to notice this, but the fatal (if you'll pardon the pun) flaw in Mindbuilder's reasoning is that the excerpted segment applies to manner of death, not cause of death. Mindbuilder is conflating the two (whether from carelessness, ignorance, or whatever other reason), but they're entirely different; cause is a medical determination, while manner is not. So even accepting that this cherry-picked material has any application to this matter (which I don't), the thesis is that a medical examiner may require as low as 51% certainty before deeming a death to be one of the following: suicide, homicide, accident, or natural causes. That has no application whatsoever to the degree of certainty of the determination of the cause of death, i.e., the medical circumstances that ended the life of the decedent. That is the question presented here: whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source for the cause of death, not the manner of death.
    Dyrnych (talk
    ) 02:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Have mites been ruled out as a cause of colony collapse disorder?

Sources
  1. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3470-y
    . Retrieved 6 January 2015. It says: "persistent, low concentrations of these insecticides pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts.... their broad spectrum leads to undesirable effects on non-target insects" (citing Lu et al 2012 and 2014.)
  2. WP:PRIMARY sources: Lu, Chensheng (Alex); Warchol, Kenneth M.; Callahan, Richard A. (2014). "Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder" (PDF). Bulletin of Insectology. 67 (1): 125–130. along with the same authors' 2012 work.
  3. WP:SECONDARY popular treatment: Tarlach, Gemma (May 9, 2014). "Pesticides, Not Mites, Cause Honeybee Colony Collapse"
    . Discover. Retrieved 3 January 2015. It states: "researchers monitored 18 bee colonies — six in each location — from October 2012 through April 2013. A third of the colonies were exposed to low doses of the pesticide imidacloprid, while another third were exposed to the pesticide clothianidin. Both pesticides belong to the neonicotinoid class and are commonly used in agriculture. The remainder of the colonies were left untreated.... In January, however, while the control colony populations began to increase as expected, the number of bees in the treated colonies continued to decline. By April, 50 percent of the treated colonies had been wiped out, showing the hive abandonment pattern typical of CCD.... Researchers noted that one of the control colonies also was lost, but its thousands of dead bees were found inside their hive, showing symptoms of Nosema ceranae, an intestinal parasite. When CCD first emerged in honeybee colonies in the mid 2000s, N. ceranae was put forward as a possible cause. Subsequent research in Europe, however, has suggested N. ceranae was widespread in many areas before CCD and is not associated with the phenomenon." (emphasis added.)
Articles
Colony collapse disorder (CCD), as discussed at Talk:Colony collapse disorder#Mites ruled out, along with Neonicotinoid, and possibly Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Fipronil.
Content question
Do reliable sources support the assertion that Nosema ceranae mites have been ruled out as a possible cause of CCD? If so, should this statement be included in Wikipedia's voice, or attributed to one or more of the sources? EllenCT (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a PRIMARY source. There are reviews coming out in this area all the time. Wait til a secondary source or two comes out that takes this into account. Every WP policy and guideline urges us to do that. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Simon-Delso review is a secondary MEDRS-grade review which clearly confirms both Lu et al primary studies. The secondary popular news treatment is included for its clear description of the experiments and their outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
For the Discovery source [3], it is not from an expert in the field. For anyone well versed in the topic, almost any primary study claiming to have figured out CCD is a huge claim that would require great evidence. That's one thing we'd need a review article to weigh in on to specifically state whether such a study is valid, or what potential causes have been ruled out or not. It is indeed a kind of secondary source, but not one reliable for claims made by the primary source. #1 just cites the primary source, but does not give a blanket confirmation to the study. There are other similar sources disputing the study as well, so I'm not seeing any rush to push content in here (none has been proposed yet).
talk
) 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you claim that the Discovery source [3] misconstrues the primary study or its results in any way? Do you claim that the secondary MEDRS-grade review disapproves of any aspect of either primary experiment in any way? Which "similar sources" dispute the studies? The proposed change is the addition being asked about under "content question" above. EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: my first interaction with

WP:MEDRS-quality "literature reviews supporting [his] contention that neonics are not toxic to bees or implicated in CCD," to which in reply he offered this source which was sponsored by Bayer Cropscience, written by paid consultants, and which purports to be a general review of toxicological findings, but in actuality is only a review of study methodologies. Since then Kingofaces43 has become extremely upset when I have brought this subject up, complaining about me for doing so several times on WP:ANI. He was also very upset and accusatory when I asked him simple, non-identifying questions to clear up COI issues, such as his job title. Since then, I used the opportunity of the recent Arbitration Committee elections to ask all twenty candidates whether they thought bringing up these facts was appropriate (Question 4 here.) I note that more than half of the candidates, and more than half of the winning candidates, indicated that it is appropriate to raise this issue. EllenCT (talk
) 00:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, EllenCT completely misrepresents the history here. So much so that there is nothing to say. Needless to say, there is no secondary source for the conclusion she draws and the primary source doesn't make as strong a statement as she wants to make. She is really just POV-pushing here. not worth responding beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
How exactly am I misrepresenting history? I note the discussion is ongoing on the article talk page, where it appears that there are no objections to including the secondary source's characterizations of the primary sources' conclusions, and no policy-based reasons for not including a description of the experiments themselves, along with their outcome. EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll just leave a quick note as well for those reading. Ellen has been made quite aware that her description is extremely misleading on her talk page [1][2] and at ANI[3], yet continues to misrepresent what I've said and is continuing the hounding in inappropriate places such as here. Both are against
talk
) 04:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my description as entirely accurate. Your links do not contradict my description in any way. Are you claiming that raising unresolved COI concerns is contrary to WP:TALKNO?EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Continued harassment and purposely misrepresenting an editor's statements are indeed contrary and are especially inappropriate regardless of legitimacy of a claim about a user while at RSN. That is why this conversation was hatted to at least give you the opportunity to drop the stick. You've been made aware multiple times you are misrepresenting what I wrote and twisting it into strange beliefs (hence the purposely above). I don't intend to entertain the
talk
) 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want uninvolved editors to reply then you need to better explain the dispute. Editors should not have to read through the links, edits to the article and the discussion threads to understand what the dispute is about. TFD (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean to reply to me or Kingofaces? EllenCT (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Middle East Research and Information Project

Is this article from the Middle East Research and Information Project a reliable source? It reads like advocacy, but the information on their About Us page seems to suggest they may be reliable. OTOH this source from James D. Savage, a political science professor at the University of Virginia may be more reliable and has a very different tone.

This is regarding a discussion on the RTI International page with User:Exit8 and User:FreeRangeFrog, where I have a COI and have brought the article up to "Good Article" standards. CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

American Left

Article: American Left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sources

  • Howie Hawkins quoted in Tarleton, John, "Meet Howie Hawkins, the Anti-Cuomo", The Indypendent: “I see the Green Party as the political expression of the New Left of the ’60s.”
  • Hawkins, Howie, "The Green Party and the Future of the US Left", Left Turn: "Is the Green Party that left party that has been missing in US politics? The Green Party is still a work in progress and the radical left can help shape its development.... [T]he radical wing [of the Green Party] sees the Greens as the political party expression of the New Left.... The moderate wing is oriented most toward winning over progressive Democrats by raising traditional liberal demands...."
  • "United States: "Greens become NY's third party after strong left campaign",
    Green Left Weekly
    : "Green Party gubernatorial ticket in New York in the November 4 elections — headed by left-wing activist Howie Hawkins for governor and International Socialist Organization activist Brian Jones for lieutenant governor — scored a large rise in the Green vote."

Edit: [4]

Do any of these sources say say that the Green Party of the United States is a left-wing (i.e., socialist party)? Or do they say that there is a left-wing element within the Green Party?

Do these sources meet rs? Two of them are an expression of opinion by the NY gubernatorial candidate of the Green Party. All of them appear in left-wing magazines, while the categorization used for all the other parties is mostly academic books.

There is a discussion at Talk:American Left#Green Party.

TFD (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Er ... that's two different questions. Per our article Left-wing politics, even the Democratic Party in the United States is considered left-wing (in direct opposition to your statement at the top of that talk page section, I must note). But that is not to say that it is socialist. Same for the Greens; clearly they are left of the US center, but that is not the same thing as socialist. Here, for example, is the US Freedom Socialist Party explaining that the Greens aren't socialist. http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/faq Also note that Left and Right can only be defined in a relative sense, not an absolute one, and will mean different things in different countries and different times; for example, their original meaning was support for or opposition to the French Monarchy. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually the term only came to be used to describe ideology in the 20th century, by which time the socialists occupied the left in the French assembly. Marcel Gauchet wrote a history of the use of the term in "Right and Left". Nonetheless, the article is not about the political spectrum but about a related group of movements in the U.S. that are normally described as left-wing. Arguably the Republicans are left-wing too, but it would change the focus of the article if it were about all political parties in the U.S. TFD (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Paper in Complementary Therapies in Medicine

The paper whose reliability is in question is this one. I added it to

talk
01:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The source itself is OK; however, your proposed wording does not seem consistent with the article's stated findings. Perhaps you could revise it to stay a little closer to the source.
talk
) 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly what part of my proposed wording did you think contradicted the cited paper?
talk
02:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm....let's get some context here. After some searching, I found that I deleted it here, with this edit summary: "preliminary"???? I hope you're joking.... The edit was this:

A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that there was "a sufficient basis for discussing the possible benefits of homeopathy for patients suffering from fibromyalgia;" but the review also noted that its results were only preliminary.[1]

That fails MEDRS miserably. We don't give "preliminary" results any mention here, not even by the homeopathic shadow of a wishful thought.

From the source:

Results
We found 10 case-reports, 3 observational studies, 1 non-randomized and 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on homeopathy for fibromyalgia. Both case reports and observational studies are naturally predominated by the use of qualitative and not validated outcome measures. Meta-analyses of CCTs revealed effects of homeopathy on tender point count (SMD = −0.42; 95%CI −0.78, −0.05; P = 0.03), pain intensity (SMD = −0.54; 95%CI −0.97, −0.10; P = 0.02), and fatigue (SMD = −0.47; 95%CI −0.90, −0.05; P = 0.03) compared to placebo.
Conclusion
The results of the studies as well as the case reports define a sufficient basis for discussing the possible benefits of homeopathy for patients suffering from fibromyalgia syndrome although any conclusions based on the results of this review have to be regarded as preliminary.

Need I say more? That this was even published is pretty astounding and saddening. If there is anything here which can teach us something, it's the sorry state of affairs with homeopathic research. --

talk
) 05:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It seems like any statement that reflected the conclusions of this source would be so laden with caveats as to be useless.
    Dyrnych (talk
    ) 05:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly! --
    talk
    ) 19:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2014.06.005
    .

Social Bookshelves

User

WP:SPAM issue? Are there any tools available for seeing links to external sites or removing them automatically or have I got it all wrong at it's ok in this case? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done
) 15:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not RS - no evidence for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In fact, no evidence that this is anything beyond a personal blog. And accordingly, spam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

News 0404

is the new Israeli private news channel,

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 Nishidani (talk
) 12:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

GospelPrime

I'm trying to evaluate whether GospelPrime is a

talk
) 14:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Behindwoods.com

I have created and expanded (to some extent) this article on a film portal website and I want to evaluate whether it satisifes

WP:RS or not? Thanks. — Ssven2 speak 2 me
03:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It would probably work for Tamil movie news,[6](fine article) it can be optional for reporting about Tamil songs and actors. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti: Yes, and also for film reviews, top 10 regional songs, and box office rankings (Chennai city only). — Ssven2 speak 2 me 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Our article on this journal states that it is peer reviewed, but makes no mention that they have published articles supportive of HHO and magnecules. The prior is from a conference and the latter is from the "discussion" section of the journal, but these still seem highly dubious. Is the source itself reliable? Should our article on the journal discuss its publication of pseudoscience? VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the more important question would be why we have an article on the journal at all. The article cites no source which in any shape or form establishes its notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: valid point. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the journal's reliability, as well. It is used as a source in at least one article. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, Elsevier, the publisher has something of a mixed reputation, and the Journal seems to have published some fringe stuff - but I'm sure that there are other contributors more able to assess such journals than me. Certainly the mere fact of being peer-reviewed doesn't make for automatic reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If a video accompanies a text by an 'alternative' news outlet does this affect our definition of RS.

In the area I work in, much of one side of a complex reality is ignored or underreported, though covered in part by sources I personally try not to use except when the context or authorship of the piece seems to justify using them.

At Skunk (weapon), some editors are claiming that

cannot be used.

These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers. They are of high relevance to the Palestinian side. Haggai Matar and Anni Robbins are journalists. Matar writes in Hebrew, worked for

Ma'ariv
, and won the 2012 Anna Lindh Mediterranean Journalist Award. Annie Robbins's works for Mondoweiss. I am less sure that she fits the profile, but her article is not what we normally understand as blogging. It is documented reportage.

The objection is that these are blogs.

Jerusalem Post and Mairav Zonzein are published in mainstream Western newspapers, and mainstream Jewish journals like The Forward
.

The two articles in question hosted by +972 Magazine and Mondoweiss contain videos illustrating the journalists' reportage. Does the presence of videos documenting what the text refers to validate these as sources specifically for what the article describes? My view on such borderline cases is contextual, whether the article informs, or rants, or just opinionizes. I see both of these specific articles as examples of straight reportage of an otherwise underdescribed (in Western mainstream media) events. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I know I have no real expertise here, but my guess would be that the Matar piece would qualify as a reliable source, based on the reputation of the author, and that the Robbins piece might qualify as corroboration of Matas if such were deemed to be required. I would tend to agree that blog posts which are obviously of an opinionated nature probably can't be used, but I think we have in the past found that blog entries of some newspapers and news sources do qualify as reliable, and if these meet similar criteria, as I think they probably do, they would qualify. The presence of videos in some sites, like perhaps Joshua Bonehill-Paine's website, given the, um, reputation of the site and its author in general, might be different, but those would I think be separate cases from this one. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blogs that can be presumed to have decent editorial oversight - New York Times, BBC etc - are usually ok. Are these comparable? I must add a pet peeve: we do a lot to ensure that people with poor sight are not massively impeded here on Wikipedia (I know that we are not perfect) but I've been seeing a lot of videos of late and they are almost always useless for the deaf. It is because I am deaf that I can't comment here on whether, for example, the video is being used in an original research manner, an analogous example of which can be seen in a thread at Talk:Bhagat Singh today where someone tries to extrapolate a religious belief from appearance in a photograph. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I wish I knew of a way which we could use to maybe do something like wikisource does on some pages, like for instance this one, which could be set up to show the video on one side and a transcript of the audio on the other. I'm not at all sure that we could necessarily do that without some real copyright problems, or maybe extremely high standards of content, to not intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent what is being said. I honestly don't have a clue what could be done there, but maybe the foundation might be able to arrange transcripts of some sources on one of the sites. Maybe. But that would probably have to be done by the foundation itself. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Both articles have text accompanying the videos. In my understanding, blogs are rightly viewed as extremely iffy in so far as they are personal views, and we try to build up the data base of our articles on facts. When one has, with +972 magazine, an on-line medium that does a lot of translating of what the Hebrew press reports, is run by professional journalists, many who have solid curriculum vitaes as professionals, and report otherwise relatively neglected issues, with an accompanying video that 'verifies' that we are not dealing with personal opinions for an incident or event, but objective occurrences, then I think our rationale for challenging the 'blog' is substantially weakened. The editors opposing this material are opposing it because they mechanically erase at sight anything on their black list dealing with the reportage of incidents in the West Bank. They do not, to my knowledge, show any passion or alacrity for applying the extremely stringent reading of RS they use here, to any Israeli-interest events. I don't think this blatant instrumental, partisan use of rules shows any concern for wikipe4dia's factual objectivity. To the contrary it uses a rule to violate NPOV coverage. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand why this question arises at all. May be because it based on such incorrect base as:
  • "These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers"
See the following examples which I found in one minute:
... & besides of
So I do not see any need in those biased & not reliable sources. In my opinion, NYT, Haaretz, and arabnews is more than enough :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It is underreported. I've searched extensively over the 6 year period in which it is, according to observers, used frequently, and found very little information. To call a source 'biased' because it reports a Palestinian POV is not to understand that in Wikipedia, NPOV consists of balancing POVs. Most of what strictly qualifies as 'mainstream press' coverage in the I/P area comes from Israel and the United States, and the reportage is notoriously skewed to one side. Any incident involving Palestinian violence gets world-wide massive and detailed, ongoing coverage. Most incidents reported in
WP:RS in my editing, I have no problem in using minor sources as here where I approached a minor Israeli news outlet as usable if the information is otherwise underreported. Nishidani (talk
) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015
or 2014 or 2013. You have on the page the fact it was and is still used, you have names of places, you have a few examples and then you move on and criticism of the way it is used by Israel. At some point the article seemed like an index for any news reports you could put your hand on.
Do you now put on article for
Tavor any time it was used? I don't compare and I think the Skunk article should reflect the problematic use but between that and obsessing over it, there is a big distance. Ashtul (talk
) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What's that got to do with the price of fish. I've been silent for 8 years on the fact that editors have dedicated an enormous amount of their time and mainspace on a unilateral classification of types of violence of Palestinians against Israelis. The
WP:RS
. Yet one group grouches.
There is one difference, in the work I do in this area: I define the article to refer to all incidents of violence Israeli vs Palestinians, as well as Palestinians versus Israelis, in accordance for once with
WP:NPOV. I don't scour for results. I read the newspapers, and add events as they occur, and have an impact on either side. I don't obsess. I watch what editors do, and try to ensure that this encyclopedia comprehensively covers all sides to a conflict, rather than being a vehicle for one state's complaints.Nishidani (talk
) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, the article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is a collection of those attacks so a list is appropriate, it isn't the Qassam rocket page. Skunk page is about the material. If you wish to start a page list of case where Skunk was used, go ahead. But it does NOT belong on a page of the Skunk itself. Ashtul (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The same claim you can hear from Israeli side too. So? Two examples only: Israeli police's reports, one approving Arami murder as terror attack, and 2nd - denied settlers' responsability on mosque's damage (12 November 2014) were not reported by international media. I'd remind that Secret have deleted the Death of Netanel Arami article basing on your arguments about the absence of such publications in international media. I do not think that it was right decision, but ...
Both your +972 & Mondoweiss sources are based on same 2 clips (25 sec & 1:22 long). Anybody may check them and see that they do not give any reliable & whole picture about what happened there. So you really propose to base on commentaries from those biased sources only. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact Mondoweiss is suffient. No source has to give the 'whole picture': none ever does. So your point is pointless. The question is, if that video and report confirm each other and as such are usuable?
Nishidani, the article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is a collection of those attacks so a list is appropriate, it isn't the Qassam rocket page. Skunk page is about the material. If you wish to start a page list of case where Skunk was used, go ahead. But it does NOT belong on a page of the Skunk itself. Ashtul (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please stop raising irrelevant arguments not pertinent to this request. Please desist from what appears to be a new life-meaningful mission to follow my editing work and make silly remarks or reverts on them.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant? You asked why over there it is OK and here it isn't and I answered that. Once again, Skunk page is about the MATERIAL and there should be info of how it used of which you have excelled. What it should NOT be is an index for everytime it have been used.
And it is not life-mission, just hobby. I don't touch anything that is even close to reasonable. With all the controversial articles I saw, no editor was as biased as you are. "Israel sought to justify..." right? - "but the source wrote it". Right!
Ashtul (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
HOUNDING of User: Nishidani are tiresome and annoying. I advise you to stop your disruptive behavior, or you could be topic-banned or blocked. Regards, IjonTichy (talk
) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy of Baby It's Cold Outside

Content:

In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from a modernistic reading of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading. These readers cite certain lines as being questionable, including "I simply must go", "The answer is no", "I've got to go home". There is also the line "Hey, what's in this drink", which is seen as implicative of alcohol affecting the "mouse's" judgement or that they have been

which?
] at the time the song was written, used a similar line to refer to someone behaving in a different manner than they expected and blaming it on the alcohol.

"‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ was once an anthem for progressive women. What happened?". The Washington Post. Hannun, Marya (11 December 2013). "'SOUTH PARK' Takes on Bill Cosby ... BABY THERE'S AN ASSAULT OUTSIDE". TMZ (11 December 2014). "8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape". Cracked.com (13 February 2010). "“Baby It’s Cold Outside” Isn’t About Date Rape!".

Salon (website)
(19 December 2012). "Is "Baby, It's Cold Outside" a date-rape anthem?".
Salon (website)
. Deusner, Stephen (10 December 2012). "Baby, It’s Just A Song". The Federalist (website). Magness, Cheryl (3 December 2014). "Christmas songs that illustrate the worst in humanity".
George Ouzounian
(19 December 2012).

These are some of the proposed sources for and against the date rape implications surrounding Baby, It's Cold Outside. We are determining if these are propaganda or satire, and if so, which ones fit RS guidelines. Timeraner (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources all appear OK, especially WP and Salon. Doesn't this more belong at
WP:NPOV/N?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
) 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll move it. Timeraner (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Cracked.com is definitely not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter & Pumped Up Kicks

I'm wondering if the Hollywood Reporter, specifically this article would be a reliable source for the info put on this page. The source is used as an example as to why the song was taken off the radio, but I don't think that this is all too reliable, as the source only says it "includes" some specific lyrics, but never says that those specific lyrics actually caused the song to be taken off the radio. If the source reliable in this instance (it's not even related to Pumped Up Kicks), or would it count as "personal opinion of the author" (or anything similar)? Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 05:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Find corroborating content if Hollywood Reporter is not seen as reliable, the article is mainly about Ke$ha, and not about Foster the People. All else false attribute it to The Hollywood Reporter.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The main question here, however, is that would the Hollywood Reporter article be a reliable source for the following bolded text?
"The song was pulled from some U.S. radio stations in December 2012 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, due to its lines "You'd better run, better run, outrun my gun" and "You'd better run faster than my bullet."[1]"
As the article is mainly about Ke$ha and not Foster the People, and that the article doesn't actually say those specific lyrics caused the song to be taken off the radio, what I'm wondering is that is the Hollywood Reporter article a reliable source for the bolded text above, or should the bolded text be taken out of the article?
Sorry for any in convince caused by this.
  1. ^ Zemler, Emily (December 18, 2012). "Ke$ha Responds to Radio Dropping 'Die Young' in Wake of School Shooting". The Hollywood Reporter.
Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 20:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The article in The Hollywood Reporter says that the song was taken off the air and lists the lyrics; however, it doesn't explicitly link them. I noticed quite a few hits on Google News for the radio ban, and most of them also seem to quote the chorus. Clearly, the chorus is a part of why it was taken off the air, but it's difficult to find an article that explicitly links the lyrics to the ban. This article does, but it's a local newspaper. This article also cites the lyrics as the cause for another local station. Maybe you can find a source that's a bit less regional in scope, but it doesn't seem like this is unwarranted original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is TMZ which is not a local source. http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/19/pumped-up-kicks-foster-the-people-newtown-sandy-hook-school-schooting/ I think that we can write it was removed from multiple radio stations after Newtown because of its lyrics which seemed to depict a school shooting. We don't need to specify which specific lines caused it. --GRuban (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
By comparison, the article for Titanium, another song taken off the radio after the tragedy, states the song was taken off simply for having "gun-related lyrics", but don't list specific lyrics, even though doing such can be easily done. So yeah, I'm going to remove the specific lyrics from the Pumped Up Kicks page and replace it with something more… general. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 01:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Done; I replaced the bolded text above with something more general that TMZ states, which is also what I think as well, to be honest. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Guns And Shooting Online" chuckhawks.com

Discussion:

This website has articles by Chuck Hawks about many topics (motorcycles, astronomy, travel & fishing, etc). The largest division is titled "Guns and Shooting Online". That part has a masthead-type staff, but the "Owner and Managing Editor"/main contributor, Chuck Hawks, is a private person. I can find no evidence that he has ever been published in a reliable source or anywhere outside his own website. Likewise for other contributors. It's been the subject of some discussion on WP. An anonymous editor calls him "a well respected and widely published firearms and reloading expert." Two different editors question the accuracy of certain facts from the site. An editor finds an incorrect fact from an article by a 3rd party on the site that was subsequently corrected. One editor said that he is not a reliable source for military firearms. And another editor finds a Hawks' article to be superior to a Wikipedia article on the same topic. (Faint praise!) An editor of a naval article said that the source looks self-published and therefore not to be relied upon. The primary question here is whether it looks like the editorial process is sufficient prevent the site from being regarded as self-published, and whether that editorial process applies both to regular contributors and to the main contributor/"Owner and Managing Editor". How do we decide? Rezin (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Without detailed information on the editorial process, I think it's fair to assume that the owner and managing editor of a website who is also its main contributor should be treated as a self-published source. That's not to say he isn't reliable;
WP:SPS has "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You said he's never been published elsewhere, but have other publications cited his work on the website as being useful or reliable? Some self-published authors' work is well-respected in their field. Knight of Truth (talk
) 17:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. The website has been cited in some books. See Google books search I don't see which refer to him as an expert. When I read over talk pages discussing the SPS policy I got the impression that being cited wasn't sufficient to qualify as a recognized expert, and that the only test was previous publication.
If we go with the view that Hawks, the owner/editor, is a non-expert self-publishing his own work how does that bear upon articles written for the website by third parties? Rezin (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, preference should be given to people who have been published in third-party sources, or better yet, the non-self-published sources themselves. But when a self-published source has a reputation for quality and accuracy, personally I'm inclined to file it under
WP:WORKINPROGRESS. (At least, when it's not on a very sensitive topic.) As for articles written by others, I think we should be suspicious in treating their work as non-self-published if we treat Hawks' work as self-published. But if there's evidence to suggest they go through a process of editing and fact-checking, I think they would be acceptable. However, more scholarly works are always preferable; have you considered whether the local library has anything on offer? It's useful to other editors if the sources are online, but they certainly don't need to be, and you shouldn't be disinclined to use a print source if it's better than what's there right now. Knight of Truth (talk
) 20:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That sounds a bit like
WP:GUNS which use seemingly self-published sources. But in general there aren't many scholarly sources that address firearms (except in reference to gun violence). Links to this particular source appear 385 times on Wikipedia articles and talk pages.[8] So it'd lighten my workload, and that of future editors looking to cite existing text, if the website is deemed reliable. Rezin (talk
) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Please don't make unfounded accusations. This is part of an objective review of self-published sources. You seem to be familiar with the source. If you can tell us which authors published on his site have been previously published in reliable sources that'd help the discussion. Rezin (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Article subject writing about self in unsavory source

Regarding this edit dispute. Fredrick Brennan is a young man with osteogenesis imperfecta, "brittle bone disease", which has had a major impact on his life - wheelchair bound, very short, over 100 highly painful broken bones over his 20-odd years. He's managed to achieve something despite this but it hasn't been easy. He wrote about this, and about how it caused him to support eugenics, so no more children would be born with his problems. But the place he wrote about it was the Daily Stormer, a racist website. (He said others wouldn't take it - even a disabled person writing about sterilizing disabled people is too touchy.) Anyway, I wanted to use it in the Fredrick Brennan article, to talk about his early life and his views on his condition, as it is an article subject writing about himself, and something rather important to his life. User:Ryulong objects because the Stormer is clearly not a reliable source in general. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not Stormfront but a blog called, The Daily Stormer. Here's the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Well we aren't going to cite that festering heap of shit either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Look, even a FHoS is reliable when writing about itself, right? Well, here it is. --GRuban (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it or is it not affiliated with Stormfront.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No idea, and don't care. The detailed taxonomy of racist sites isn't relevant. The point is that it is a source writing about itself. --GRuban (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Clearly a self-published source, I would say. (Let use leave the publisher's point of view out of it for a moment.) If The Daily Stormer was the only one that would take it, being unique in this respect, this reflects poorly on any editors the blog might have. I doubt much in the way of fact-checking, etc. was conducted. Self-published autobiographies should always be treated with a little skepticism, but are a good source for someone's personal opinion. It is not a reliable source for Brennan's life history in the objective sense; even someone's view of their own life can be wrong. Unless there is reason to suggest Brennan is not the true author, I don't see why we should treat a biased site as different from any other self-published source. Knight of Truth (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Because the website is a neo-Nazi blog.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
...and? The caveats for use of self-published sources are such that it does not really matter whether the self-publishing medium is opinionated. It does not make sense to me that content on a subject's own website could be acceptable, but the same content by the same person on a website run by unlikable people could not. If you feel strongly about not linking to the site, why not use WebCite and only provide the archival link? Knight of Truth (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Because we have no way of verifying that the archived version is authentic either, for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, Brennan isn't simply 'writing about himself' - he is (if the source is to be trusted, which I don't think we should) advocating a particular political policy: "offering people with debilitating, genetically dominant genetic diseases $100,000 cash each to undergo voluntary sterilization would be a libertarian, humane way to encourage genetic purity." AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That is writing about himself. It is stating is that he holds that opinion. We certainly write on advocates' pages what positions they advocate. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The main issue I see is can it be reliably verified that the purported post is actually from the subject in question. Stormfront is not reliable for that purpose. If it could be verified, or if his post has been discussed in secondary sources, then I think it may qualify under SELFPUB. (the secondaries would remove the issue anyway as we can use them directly, as we do at Steve Scalise where we also have content that was written about a BLP by an anonymous source at stormfront, which was subsequently picked up by secondaries and used in our article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If the information is correct, you can find something better than stormfront. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no, no we can't. Brennan specifically says "I hope you will not dismiss this article as the ravings of a neo-Nazi given the site it’s on. I could find no other publication which would publish this article, and I am far from a neo-Nazi." (Also, why does everyone keep saying Stormfront? The name seems to be Daily Stormer. There is, unfortunately, more than one neo-nazi site in the world.) --GRuban (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Citing a non-legal source for a legal opinion or conclusion

How does WP deal with a non-legal source giving a legal opinion or attempting to provide a legal analysis? The issue here is that an editor is attempting to use a Vice article (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dear-gamergate-please-stop-stealing-our-shit), written by a staff writer (to the best I can tell, a non-lawyer), who quotes several lawyers and attempts to perform a legal analysis of a very complex subject, specifically, possible violations of Copyright law by the use of archive.today. The author make several claims, specifically, that this use of archive.today is both a violation of copyright law in the specific instance that is being alleged in the article, and that the people who are using archive.today in this manner are "stealing". Both of these claims are extremely problematic from a legal stand point, and further, are never actually made by the quoted legal experts. At best, the legal experts quoted hedged and said its possible at best, but not a "slam dunk" case. This is further exasperated by the editor attempting to use this source as a reliable source for both this legal analysis and the legal conclusion the author makes. Without getting into the particulars of legal advice, and legal analysis, I have two questions.

  • First: Can a non-legal source be cited for a legal opinion or analysis?
  • Second: While a source may be reliable for its opinion, can a source be unreliable in other matters, for instance, for providing legal analysis or legal conclusions (in this case, that X factual situation violates copyright law). Ries42 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd think that 'piracy is against the law' would be about as controversial as 'water is wet'. What actual edit does someone want to make based on that article? Daveosaurus (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If it were that simple, sure. But this isn't Piracy. And frankly, when dealing with legal opinions nothing is ever really cut and dry. And copyright law in particular is notoriously complex, even among legal topics. Frankly, I have reservations that a full legal researched law review article could do the topic justice, there is virtually no way a Vice blog staff writer could do so (no offense intended). The edit in question: This practice attracted criticism from Jason Koebler, writing for Motherboard, as a violation of copyright laws. The only person to make that claim in the article in question is a non-lawyer. All the lawyers quoted made much less direct statements. Ries42 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
That is an attributed statement of opinion. It is not an assertion, in Wikipedia's voice, that Koebler is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It is still an assertion, if not in WP's voice, it is one that is on WP. We wouldn't allow an assertion that is a BLP violation of WP, even if it wasn't in WP's voice, this is no different. If anything, this may be worse. Stating what the law is, is generally ok. For instance, "Stealing is illegal". Sure. You can even explain what the specific law is with little trouble. "Statute X.XX says petty theft is the stealing of an item or items whose total value does not exceed $100." That's still pretty ok. Its when you take the next step, and actally apply the law to a factual situation where you get into drawing a legal conclusion and legal analysis that is inappropriate for a non-legal authority to state. For instance "Johnny has committed petty theft" or "Johnny is in violation of copyright law" is inappropriate. Also, those statements may be illegal for a non-lawyer to make in the non-hypothetical sense as an unlicensed practicing of law.
I would appreciate if a lawyer actually weighed in here. I'm not asking for legal advice, simply a lawyer would understand what I'm trying to explain better than a non-lawyer. Ries42 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
"those statements may be illegal for a non-lawyer to make in the non-hypothetical sense as an unlicensed practicing of law"? No. That is complete and utter nonsense. Koebler isn't practising law. Saying that someone is stealing from you (even if incorrect) isn't practising law. Not even remotely. Nobody is paying Koebler for legal advice. Koebler isn't arguing a case in court. He makes no claims to be a lawyer. It is self-evident to our readers that Koebler, as an involved party, isn't offering neutral legal advice. Nobody is going to take such a statement as some sort of legal ruling. And incidentally, accusing someone of 'unlicensed practicing of law' looks to me very much like a WP:BLP violation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I said it could be, and it can be. The issue I'm speaking about here is specifically about putting on Wikipedia that "X is a copyright violation." No matter the context, a non-lawyer making that statement is at best problematic. I'm asking about something specific, that likely a lawyer needs to weigh in on. Are you a lawyer? Ries42 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the Wikipedia reliable sources noticeboard. All contributors may comment here - and we do not offer legal advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not asking for legal advice. But you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so I'm asking for other people who do to weigh in. Ries42 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia policy. You clearly don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Andy. We can certainly write that Jason Koebler said X, without it necessarily sounding like we agree that X is right. I might rephrase it a bit to make this point more clear (say: "Jason Koebler, of Motherboard, wrote that this was stealing, and a violation of copyright law") but the basic statement is fine. From reading the source, it does seem as the opinion might be relevant, since it says that Motherboard was noticeably hit by this, so their reaction would matter. --GRuban (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree with AndyTheGrump and GRuban. Also agree that GRuban's example is better, more clear writing.
What is the context of the requested edit? Article? Preferably a diff if someone's already added it. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Growth of religion

Is this a credible source for the claim "in many West African countries including Ghana Hinduism is the fastest growing religion"? Thanks. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

He has written Religion and Chieftaincy in Ghana: An Explanation of the Persistence of a Traditional Political Institution in West Africa and it was published by LIT Verlag, a German academic publisher. Author has some credible. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
How nice of you to join the discussion, Bladesmulti. The issue is not whether the author is a serious scholar; I have no reason to doubt his credibility. The issue is whether that page qualifies as a credible citation, especially on issues as contentious as religious demographics. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It can be contentious only if it is contradicting with others. Does it? Not sure about many West African countries, but at least for Ghana it seem to be working. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What does 'fastest growing religion' actually mean though? It is an inherently ambiguous statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree and that's why about 1 year and 4 months ago the page was nominated for deletion and most of the votes were made in favour of deletion. If there is something very relevant about citing the so called fastest growth, it can be mentioned on the main page. E.g. ".... is the fastest growing religion of Russia" it can be cited on Religion in Russia, there is hardly any need to have a separate page. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If you agree that it is ambiguous, why are you insisting that it go in the article? [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
It is commonly used on this page, about 9 times for fastest-growing religion as it is the main concept of the article and it is ambiguous. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not an answer. Why are you insisting that an ambiguous source be used in this case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Because he has written the books about religion in Ghana and one of them was published by LIT Verlag, a German academic publisher, thus this page link can be used as a citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Is that even supposed to make sense? The phrase "in many West African countries including Ghana Hinduism is the fastest growing religion" is ambiguous regardless who wrote it. Measured how? In raw numbers of new believers? As a percentage compared to previous percentages? Measured over what timescale? It can simply be interpreted too many ways to be useful information. Why should an article include vague statements like that, when there are alternative sources (i.e. the ones you have avoided discussing at Talk:Growth of religion) that discuss the growth of Hinduism in Ghana in greater depth, and actually include a meaningful discussion of the subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with the depth of field. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Patheos.com

Wikipedia:SPS. Although I think the website can be reliable for religious demographics. Bladesmulti (talk
) 23:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty weak source, being a haphazard collection of broadly strewn blogs and columns with little in the way of credible editorial oversight or serious fact-checking. It's more like a forum where authors get to say whatever they want more or less unhindered. Calling the individual blog posts and articles SPSs is pretty close to the truth. It's like a Hyde Park with lots of individual soapboxes. I wouldn't use it for anything I could not verify with a much better source, in which case Patheos becomes redundant. Definitely not reliable for highly contentious and more-often-than-not totally fudged religious demographics. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the context and the source which seems to be a self-published essay. I don't think it should be used in the article. JimRenge (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Had some doubts that's why didn't used it on main page. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammadu Buhari

Hello, I'm new here and I've tried to improve Muhammadu Buhari's WP page by adding a series of sources and important informations. Unfortunately, those sources and my editing work were promptly reversed by two users (an account and an IP address) who immediately accused me of working for the opposition and for using libelous and defamatory information. I've asked for help in the Teahouse and I was advised to come here to explain my sources and get your opinion as well.

As for my sources, even if they present a more rounded approach to the legacy, life and rule of Buhari, they are by no means libelous.

I've used two New York Times articles from the 1980s, 1 source from the BBC from 2014, reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the text of the decrees passed by Buhari and then the 5 biggest Nigerian newspapers. So no blogs or things heard through the grapevine, rumors, unsourced information.

You can see my modifications and sources here and here.

I'm afraid that I've stumbled into some delicate territory here and I really need your advice as to how I should proceed next, knowing the fact that the two other users don't listen anybody and undo everything. Thanks a lot for your help. Passenger68 (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@
WP:BLP/N - Cwobeel (talk)
22:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia

You are invited to participate in RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia with particular attention to the sources cited for the contribution.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Episcopal News Weekly (LA)

The ENW mentioned Brittany Maynard as an alumna of one of their schools, front page. The brief article refers to an on-line editorial, which repeats the information and then goes on to talk religion and morality. Along the way, the author of the editorial asserts what the correct pronunciation of her last name is.

There is a dispute on Talk:Brittany Maynard#Self-published source? whether this is RS or not, and I'm moving it here.

I think the high school information is of no interest, and is UNDUE. The pronunciation, however, seems interesting. Choor monster (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole

Are the sources for the following lead sentence for the

WP:RS
?

Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check.[1]: 1 [2]: 11 [3]: 27 
  1. ^ U.S. Department of the Treasury; U.S. Department of Justice (January 1999). "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" (PDF). atf.gov. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Retrieved June 27, 2014.
  2. ^ "Gun Show Undercover" (PDF). October 2009. p. 11. Retrieved June 26, 2014.
  3. ^ "Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico Face Planning and Coordination Challenges" (PDF). gao.gov. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). June 2009. p. 27. GAO-09-709. Retrieved June 24, 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Quote from source 1: [Clinton] directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to close the gun show loophole.
  • Quote from source 2: The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or recordkeeping.
  • Quote from source 3: According to a 1999 report by the Department of the Treasury and DOJ, this is known as the "gun show loophole."

I can provide dozens of others if requested. Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is sufficient sourcing, why would somebody challenge it? Spumuq (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The argument is that the lead sentence "is not factually correct," and that "there is no loophole in the law." There are people who believe that, and it needs to be addressed in the article, and mentioned in the lead, too, but not in the lead sentence. That would give it undue weight (POV), which is where I'll probably head next, depending on the outcome here.
Thanks for your feedback. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable source when cited by another source

Can the think-tank Palestinian Media Watch, which supposedly reports content from Palestinian TV programs and newspapers, be used as a source if they're cited by another, potentially more reliable source? The claim, in 2012_Olympics_one_minute_of_silence_campaign, is that the Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida referred to the Munich Olympics massacre as the "Munich operation." It's my view that we can't cite an unreliable source at any remove, and that if Al-Hayat said this, a reliable source which says so, or the actual Al-Hayat article saying so, should be available - otherwise it's not verifiable. User:I invented "it's not you, it's me"'s view is that being cited in Commentary magazine legitimizes this source (its report is that "PMW said this"). I'll also note that the Commentary piece appears to be an opinion column, so the broader issue may be moot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While I see your concern, the general answer is yes, assuming the repeating source is itself reliable. See the current controversy at
WP:V (assuming one speaks Arabic) so I think this particular issue is a non issue along multiple avenues of argument. Gaijin42 (talk
) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
also, Commentary is not attributing that statement to PMW (although it is reasonable to assume thats where they got it). its in their own voice, which makes the whole thing further reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
If you mean that there is good reason to think Palestinian Media Watch provides inaccurate information, and therefore its information shouldn't be included in Wikipedia even if it is mentioned in a normally reliable source, that would essentially be arguing that the normally reliable source made an error in mentioning Palestinian Media Watch. A normally reliable source can be ignored if it's clear it made a mistake.
If you mean that reliable sources have to follow Wikipedia's Verifiability policy and can't use any source Wikipedia wouldn't use, no, that's nonsense. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Full source inaccessible

1. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729685,00.html html

2. Ann Dunham

3.

In late 1994, Dunham was living and working in Indonesia. One night, during dinner at a friend's house in Jakarta, she experienced stomach pain. A visit to a local physician led to an initial diagnosis of indigestion.

I noticed that you can only see the first section of this article. Is this source reliable, since most of it (including the part about Dunham being diagnosed with Uterine cancer) is not viewable to most people? I've read the page for

reliable sources, but unfortunately came up with no answer regarding this issue. Thanks, 2607:FB90:42B:9201:86E5:F4F6:D92F:95E (talk
) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, yes. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources. Time is a pretty top tier source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Although we cannot cite this page, as a Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links link you can see the full article at http://fmcsg.tripod.com/id19.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case it wasn't a credible source. Thanks for the link to the full article. :) - 2607:FB90:42B:9201:86E5:F4F6:D92F:95E (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tudor Place

Does anyone support the contention that the content of the website

and more specifically this page

is a Wikipedia

reliable source

I have stated that I do not consider it to be a RS (diff), Kbabej stated "I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source. It is used all over Wikipedia. If you show me parameters that list Tudor Place as unreliable, then I'll remove it. Until then, it's a common practice." (diff)

The issue is over a relationship between two people. There is an article called Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton (we have lots of articles called "Anthony Hungerford" it was a popular family name). This particular article is fully sourced using a Dictionary of National Biography article as a source for his family (see s:Hungerford, Anthony (1564-1627) (DNB00)). It states "By his first wife [Lucy] he was father of Sir Edward Hungerford (1596-1648) [q.v.], and by his second wife was father of Anthony [q.v.] and John, and two daughters."

better source
}} would surfice) but this is in my opinion too large an issue to be left to an unreliable source such as a page www.tudorplace.com.ar.

What do others think, is "the TP source" a reliable source for this sort of information? -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tudor Place article is used as an easier layout to read and supports the same information presented in Families Directly Descended from All the Royal Families in Europe (495 to 1932) and Mayflower Descendants bound with Supplement, which has been listed as another source for the information you are disputing, PBS. The information matches. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a more reliable source. I am not disputing the information, I am questioning adding text to Wikipdia based on a source such as www.tudorplace.com.ar. You have stated that "I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source." as I disagree I think whether it is need to be discussed here to see where the consensus lies. If you are so sure that TP is a reliable source why have you felt the need to cite another one? -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Good question. Two reasons: 1. To prove it matches other reliable sources. 2. So the information would not be removed. --Kbabej (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the about page shows it's a website put out by an amateur - I doubt it is reliable for much information, unless you can show that the guy Jorge H. Castelli is an expert in genealogy or history. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be useful if a few more of the editors who lurk here were to add their opinions to this section as to whether this website is or is not a reliable, because this it is used as a source on about 400 pages. -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gameranx on 8chan

Yesterday, I had added this page to

WP:VG/RS that it is not a reliable source at all. I attempted to retort that because the article the source is used on is not about a video game that should not matter and also that the website is already used extensively on the English Wikipedia and they have a clearly defined editorial team. This two year old discussion is all I can find about it on the video games project, but it's established usage on Wikipedia should suggest that it is considered a reliable source already. I believe that the only reason that this particular source is being contested is because the author of the article in question, Ian Miles Cheong, is a known critic and harassment target of Gamergate, and Weedwacker has been mostly pro-Gamergate since he returned to editing Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜
) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Democracy, Andreas Umland and Anton Sheckhovtsov, ADL in question of Wolfsangel use

Is Andreas Umland, German political scientist and historian, specializing in contemporary Russian and Ukrainian history, reliable source to speak about use of Wolfsangel by Social-National Party of Ukraine ?

link - https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/andreas-umland/kyiv%E2%80%99s-next-image-problem

Are Anton Sheckhovtsov's articles at

Azov Battalion
?

links: https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/provoking-euromaidan https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/look-far-right-and-look-right-again-avaz-batalion-neo-pagan-neo-nazi

Is Anti-Defamation League site reliable source to state racist Aryan Nations organization uses Wolfsangel as emblema?

http://www.adl.org/mobilehatesymbols/symbol-20.html

I think yes, but Iryna Harpy names it "soapboxing, advertising or promotion" Cathry (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Republic Report

Is Republic Report a reliable source? It is being used for several citations at

WP:BLP? See this diff. Thanks, Bahooka (talk
) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it can be used with caution. They are a non profit, started by
WP:SPS.They are likely reliable for their own statements of opinion, especially when not used in a BLP context tho. For opinions about BLPs, it would likely depend on how contentious the opinion is Gaijin42 (talk
) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The report has very strong editorial positions reflected in its articles, and should primarily be used as an opinion source and not as a source for anything remotely approaching a contentious claim about living persons for sure.
Corruption of our politics poses an existential threat to our republic. Will we be a self-governing nation of the people, by the people and for the people, or will we be ruled by special interests and big money lobbyists?
seems a clear declaration that it is not intended to state facts in a neutral manner, to be sure. No way for contentious claims of fact about living persons - if it is a fact, try to find a solid reliable source. Collect (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

David Halperin is a lawyer in Washington, DC who would vouch for his credibility and trustworthiness. Please let me know of any deletions, so that I can notify Mr. Halperin. Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, in terms of credibility of the subject in question, Rep. Alcee Hastings...[1]. Then watch the video [2] Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alcee_Hastings_corruption_scandal
  2. ^ http://www.republicreport.org/2012/alcee-hastings-struggle/


Dahnshaulis Are you saying that a lawyer may be involved if we delete content sourced to Republic Report? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I saying that I will let Mr. Halperin know of the status of any deletions of his references. If you delete anything, I'd just like to have an explanation so that I can inform my sources. This also applies to any other sources with authors I have made personal contact with. Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You may notify whoever you wish, but wikipedia doesn't really care if he cares. Beyond the general policies and discussion which we are having now and on the article talk page nobody is required to give any reasons to justify wikipedia's actions to outside individuals. This site and report is not reliable for the claim made, and the source should be removed. However, there are better sources available which make the same claim so could be used instead. [10] [11] [12][13] [14][15][16] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It says, "The views expressed in a given piece reflect those of the Republic Report writer authoring the piece." So each article must be evaluated seperately using the section
"News organizations" in RS: "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." Assuming an article meets RS, the next hurdle is weight - if the information is only found there, is it significant? Probably not. TFD (talk
) 05:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is HaKol HaYehudi a reliable site for facts?

Source: HaKol_HaYehudi

Article:

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015

Is

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015
page. This is what an Israeli investigative news-site reports of its activities.

Ha’Kol Ha’Yehudi, the site which promotes the List of

“price tag” pogroms
, published on Monday an article by Yossi Elitzur, in which Elitzur called for the murder of terror suspects instead of their arrest

When a post mortem on Israeli democracy takes place, there’s a good chance that the “Ha’Kol Ha’Yehudi” will be considered akin to Radio Rwanda, which encouraged and led the murderers to the victims during that country’s genocide. The site (Hebrew), whose name means “The Jewish Voice,” is operated by the Yehudim Smechim (“Happy Jews”) Association (Hebrew), which is the active front of the students of the

Yitzhak Ginzburg, this is in all likelihood the most extreme yeshiva around. It became famous, or rather infamous, when two of its rabbis wrote “Torat Ha’Melekh,” a treatise on the proper way – according to Jewish law – to kill gentiles.Nishidani (talk
) 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

HaKol HaYehudi has been cited by major news outlets such as JPost and Haaretz. Major Israeli media does not publish small incidents. This is just as reliable as "local..." or many other reports where nobody even saw a 'settler' but they are the immediate suspect. Ashtul (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not an argument for re 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. Mondoweiss is cited by Haaretz, too, but that technically does not make it reliable itself for facts. Please await independent editorial input. Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I have another question: is uniquely biased
+972 magazine
- RS for evidence about other source "cited by major news outlets such as JPost and Haaretz".
The question why Nishidani regularly leads +972, is also quite interesting :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The question is, why do editors remove those two sources on sight, as not compliant, while the same editors allow venues like the two Ashtul has introduced to be cited. If serious Israeli journalism is not RS, then crap sites not written by notable Israeli journalists, are automatically ruled out. I'm only being polite in raising these two sites here. I could have removed at sight Ashtul's edits from these sources since they obviously fail all RS criteria.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this JPost story, that Ashtul claimed was an example of HaKol HaYehudi being cited by a reliable source, is nothing of the sort. Actually it cites Army Radio as saying that HaKol HaYehudi was raided by police who "arrested three of the site's operators on suspicion of incitement". So rather than providing evidence of the site's reliability, it demonstrates the opposite. Haaretz also did not cite HaKol HaYehudi for facts but only noted what could be seen on a video posted there. I think Nishidani was way too accommodating in bringing this issue here. To put it bluntly, if web sites like HaKol HaYehudi are wiki-reliable we might as well just delete

WP:V and forget the concept of reliability. Zerotalk
09:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not accommodating. Where there are just 3 editors, and I am in a minority, the exercise of a policy right to remove non-RS compliant material etc. is pointless because the other two editors will or can revert one immediately, which is the case there. One has no alternative than to appeal to the larger community's judgement to establish what is obvious, and in flagrant breach of standard editorial principles, which are not being observed there. Could experienced wikipedians please clarify here and above the obvious reading of WP:RS. Though it is a formality, the editors in question cannot see the error. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I do NOT suggest HaKol HaYehudi will be a
WP:RS on any regular article. But on those lists Nishidani
nurture, many sources are half-baked. Some Ma'an articles note 'locals say...' and I assume even the UN statistics work in similar nature. No major media outlet wastes time or effort on a Molotov cocktail that caused some damage. If no one was injured, it isn't reported. They are basically equivalent to burglaries - if no one was shot, in ain't interesting.
Pretending this article will ever be fully trustworthy is not serious. In many cases no one even saw Israelis make the damage. Think of this.
My bad (or good) or the JPost link. I mistook site->cite. Ashtul (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
These considerations are irrelevant to wiki policy. Wikipedia is not divided into 'regular' and 'irregular' articles, with different criteria governing the way each might be sourced. 'Locals say' is in the source, but has been replaced since. Please wait for external input.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to ask any editor who answer to address the issue of Ma'an not standing behind some news by stating "Local say..." Ashtul (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This is syntactically incoherent, and meaningless. As it stands, one editor has chipped it, and the point made is obvious. I am being too generous in even raising these questions of reliability. Both this and the earlier text are self-evidently in violation of elementary wiki definitions of
WP:RS. Unless an independent editor challenges this judgement I will be removing both within three days. In the meantime, I have removed it. The sourcing, Facebook red alert pages, o404, and HaKol Hayehudi, is patently abusive and defiantly disruptive, and continued notwithstanding my opening this request. Nishidani (talk
) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nish, nobody reply about 0404. Please edit those sources back!Ashtul (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No one deigned to reply because the answer, I presume, was obvious. I am held to strict standards by pro-Israel editors, who delete relatively good sources because they assert the brandname (Mondoweiss, Counterpunch, etc.) is unacceptable, even if the pieces carried are by authoritative scholars and journalists. 0404 is patently way below that level. I will repost the request since it was ignored, but it is only a formality. Such crap is removed without objection by serious editors on sight.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

[17] is being used to label a Roman Catholic as "Jewish" in his biography Michael Hahn and to add him to various "Jewish" categories. Does this source meet

WP:RS. Collect (talk
) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the source for your claim that he's Roman Catholic? I don't see any decent citations in the article. Also, you removed a citation to Kurt Stone's book The Jews of Capitol Hill along with your removal of the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia ([19]). Stone's book states that Hahn was born to Jewish parents but was a practicing Christian for most of his life. I don't know whether Stone's book meets our sourcing criteria, but at a bare minimum you need to present your question accurately and honestly—the "Jewish" identification was not sourced solely to the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia, as you implied, but also to Stone's book. MastCell Talk 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The JVL biography does not say he was Jewish at all. Stone's work was already discussed above and was deemed not a reliable source for claims that a person is Jewish. When jumping in, please READ the prior discussion as it is not that hard to find. Or are you asserting that having Jewish ancestry makes a person Jewish for Wikipedia purposes? The same editor listed Barry Goldwater as Jewish, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article has had "Catholic" as his religion since at least March 2007 -- I did not add that claim. Collect (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Right, but you keep saying here that he's Roman Catholic. What's the source for that assertion? MastCell Talk 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I presumed that something which even MastCell did not correct in seven years likely had a source. Clearly you demur, but I also did not change his birth date or anything else in the article - all I did was remove what was clearly not supported by any reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, there's no need to shout. My point is that the sourcing for Judaism is weak, but the sourcing for Roman Catholicism is non-existent. I don't understand why you accepted uncritically that Hahn was Roman Catholic, but applied a very strict level of scrutiny to the claim that he was Jewish. It just seemed odd to me. Anyhow, it would seem that the statement about Roman Catholicism should be removed, since Hahn is variously described by reliable sources as either Jewish (Encyclopedia Judaica) or Episcopalian (Louisiana Secretary of State website). Right? MastCell Talk 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The cited source for "Catholic" is apparently la-cemeteries.com. The official state bio from the Louisiana Secretary of State's office says he was Episcopalian. [20] Many sources that state in passing that he was Jewish, including the Encyclopedia Judaica [21] but I haven't come across any online source, other than Stone, that goes into detail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
IOW, the Jewish Virtual Library bio which makes no claim at all that he was Jewish in the first place, is not even any sort of source for claiming he was Jewish - right? And sources which do not even create their own bio are not a source at all - just a copyfarm. Collect (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As Arxiloxos pointed out, Encyclopedia Judaica describes Hahn as Jewish, and in fact as "the first Jewish governor in the United States". Presumably this is a reliable source, so it renders the discussion of the Virtual Jewish Library moot in this instance. I'm not sure what your reference to "copyfarms" is intended to mean. MastCell Talk 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I will give you a pass on the snark as soon as you tell me what sources the EJ used - listing its cites for the Hahn biography would be a good start. Meanwhile, I think you should note that encyclopedia's seem to fall into the category of "tertiary sources" at best, and where they offer no sources whatsoever for their biography, not even that high on the source chain. Collect (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your continued focus on the tertiary status of the source.
demand for a shrubbery rather than a serious sourcing concern, and seems particularly arbitrary since you accepted and repeated the claim that Hahn was Catholic with zero sources whatsoever. MastCell Talk
20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there are different definitions of Jewish, we should always be explicit what is meant when someone is called Jewish. In this case the sources say he had Jewish ancestry, we should not imply that was his religion, unless a source says so. TFD (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a number of citations to the article, but so far only found one source saying that the subject is of jewish heritage:
More than one source say that the subject was born a bastard, to a widower.
The question though I think is whether JVI is a reliable source. IMHO the book provided above is a better source, all things considered, as the editorial status of JVI and fact checking reliability of the source are
up in the air. That doesn't mean that the source cannot be used, but the Scarecrow Press published source should be used to back it up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
) 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Collect:, one thing though, the source says that the subject was Christian, but didn't specify which denomination. Trying to find a source now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This source says he is Catholic, but uses Wikipedia as a reference, thus unusable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas, Kurt Stone provides zero material indicating that he has any solid basis to label a person as Jewish here -- other than having, apparently, a "Jewish name" which was the criterion of a rather unlamented political party of the last century. Wikipedia has decided on requiring more than "Jewish name" IIRC. For religion, I sugest you look at his obit for the church of his funeral, by the way. Collect (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you a pass on the
Encyclopedia Judaica describes Hahn as Jewish, and in fact as the first Jewish governor in the US ([22]). I would suggest that it's a reliable source for this sort of material. What is your view? MastCell Talk
19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
See response above. An "encyclopedia" which offers no sources at all for its claims is barely even a tertiary source. Like Wikipedia would be if we did not require cites. Collect (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Let us centralize this discussion on the talk page of the article, I have already started a discussion on the subject's religion there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondary vs primary sources for population genetics in
Mexicans of European descent

HI, another editor and I are having a disagreement about sourcing in the article

Mexicans of European descent
. Brief intro, then I will show the current content and the content I proposed.

Intro: The content we want to include is about

WP:SECONDARY source and it was reverted by Aergas
.

In my view, all WP's content policies strongly urge us to use recent secondary sources (see

WP:RS
guideline.

On Talk, Aergas had:

  • current content, with its sources:

Despite that extra-official sources estimate the modern white population of Mexico to be only 9-16%, in genetic studies Mexico consistently shows a European admixture comparable to countries that report white populations of 52% - 77% (in the case of Chile and Costa Rica, who average 51%[1] & 60%[2] European admixture respectively, while studies in the general Mexican population have found overall European ancestry at 58.96%[3] ranging from 56%[4] to 50-60%,[5] and up to 78% [6]).

  1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25052264
  2. PMID 12556237
    .
  3. ^ J.K. Estrada, A. Hidalgo-Miranda, I. Silva-Zolezzi and G. Jimenez-Sanchez. "Evaluation of Ancestry and Linkage Disequilibrium Sharing in Admixed Population in Mexico". ASHG. Retrieved July 18, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ "Geographic Patterns of Genome Admixture in Latin American Mestizos". PLoS genetics. 2008-03-21. Retrieved 2013-09-09.
  5. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11891937
  6. ^ Genetic structure of the populations migrating from San Luis Potosi and Zacatecas to Nuevo León in Mexico.
  • proposed content, with its source:

A 2014 publication summarizing population genetics research in Mexico, which have included three nationwide surveys and several region-specific surveys, found that in the studies done to date, "Amerindian ancestry is most prevalent (51% to 56%) in the three general estimates, followed by European ancestry (40% to 45%); the African share represents only 2% to 5%.... In Mexico City, the European contribution was estimated as 21% to 32% in six of the seven reports, with the anomalous value of 57% obtained in a single sample of 19 subjects. European ancestry is most prevalent in the north (Chihuahua, 50%; Sonora, 62%; Nuevo León, 55%), but in a recent sample from Nuevo León and elsewhere in the country, Amerindian ancestry is dominant."[1]

  1. PMID 24764751 PMC 3983580

Please comment on the sourcing issues here. Should we use a pile of old primary sources or a recent secondary source? Note - I am very open to changing the content based on the secondary source - the focus here is on sourcing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is almost more of a weight question somewhat. In terms of reliability though, we are in no position to assess whether a study is "correct" or not. Guidelines like
talk
) 17:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking (quickly) at ref 4 in the old text: Geographic Patterns of Genome Admixture in Latin American Mestizos|journal=PLoS genetics |date=2008-03-21 , I can't see where the 56% figure it supports is. The averages in Table 1 aren't that. Go with the new, i'd say, though the wording for what the figures actually represent needs clarifying (as in the old version). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll add another somewhat off-topic response: I doubt that the average reader will understand what the article says there. Does that mean that all Mexicans have a mix of 55% native Amerindian genes, 40% European genes, and 5% African genes? Or does it mean that 55% of the Mexicans are 100% native Amerindian, 40% are 100% European, and 5% are 100% African? The answer is presumably somewhere in between, but I think that different readers will understand that passage differently. It might be more useful (if you can find sources for it) to say something like "10% of Mexicans are believed to have pure Amerindian ancestry. 5% are believed to have pure European ancestry, and 5% have pure African ancestry. Most Mexicans have a mix of genes from different continents. On average, they have somewhat more Amerindian ancestry than European genes." (or something like that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." is very important and secondary sources should always prevail--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Veterans Today

Is this website http://www.veteranstoday.com/ a reliable site for reference? How about this one http://en.shafaqna.com/?

Typically you should note the article where the source is being used and what content it's being used to support. That said, Veterans Today seems like it meets the guidelines. I couldn't find any information about editorial control for the second website. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart again

The edit at issue:

Commenting on the reception,
Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”[1]
  1. ^ Shapiro, Ben (July 15, 2014). "7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'". Breitbart. Retrieved 16 July 2014.

IHO, Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions by its commentators clearly presented as opinion. The material has been repeatedly excised with comments: The "consensus" on BRD doesn't override WP policies involving questionable sources, they can't make claims about 3rd parties, reverted to revision 636802416 by Gamaliel: Per WP:BRD and WP:BLP concerns; please discuss on talk and reach consensus before edit warring to include contentious material, Dubious source commenting directly on living individuals, should be used with caution and only after consensus for inclusion, Undid revision 636723525 by Srich32977 (talk) Breitbart is QS and multiple past noticeboard discussions have concluded that it is not a reliable source, and Contentious claims about third parties is against wp:qs and wp:aboutself. Such quotes can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Again IMHO, the comment about "movie critics" is not directed at specific individuals, and is clearly an opinion about some critics who are not named or singled out here.

WP:RS, this board is the place for discussion. Collect (talk
) 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that Breitbart has a reputation of any sort for high-quality movie reviews, or for movie reviews at all. Maybe we should source movie opinion to third-party independent reviewers with actual reputations for offering critical opinions about movies? There are plenty of bloggers and questionable sources that write about movies they've seen; that doesn't make them RS for movie opinions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure it is a reliable source for its own opinion, but the issue is
weight - who cares what its opinions on film critics is? TFD (talk
) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, that there are potential
WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk
) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond
WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E
19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets
WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk
) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about BLPGROUP. Third-parties are defined more broadly in
WP:RS. Questionable sources shouldn't be used for opinions on third parties.__ E L A Q U E A T E
22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Reliable Source, Breitbart.com meets all the requirements set forth in
    WP:NPOV/N
    .
I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as
wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk
) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see evidence that its reputation has improved. Consensus could change, but that involves more actual agreement on the source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed, quoted opinions. The section in question is explicitly covering political commentary reaction to a political documentary (that means subjective opinions), and contains political punditry from sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, and others. Singling out the most prominent conservative news/opinion site for exclusion, one which employs professional reporters, editors, and critics (unlike many of the section's other, leftist sites), is not only absurd on the merits but would constitute a gross
    WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk
    ) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Breitbart isn't excluded from that page, it has at least another quote that is specifically about their opinion of the movie; the other opinion sources you mentioned are about their opinions of the movie, not each other or the general state of movie reviewing. There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials, or to describe whether people are too liberal to review films.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Breitbart has already been found reliable for the film review on the basis that it's reliable for its own attributed opinions, so there's no legitimate, rational basis for asserting that it's somehow not reliable for its own attributed opinions on other topics, particularly ones where expertise is less of a factor. The controlling factor on inclusion would be
WP:NPOV and due weight on a case by case basis, not sourcing policy. The section in question here is explicitly dedicated to political commentary, which Shapiro's article about the reception to this particular movie undeniably falls under, and there's no policy basis for prohibiting commentary about the reception to the movie in film articles (indeed there are numerous examples of such quoted opinion on receptions, particularly where there's some controversy at play). As long as the opinion is properly attributed it's allowable and important for us to cover. VictorD7 (talk
) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It does not follow that Breitbart should be used as a source for general "political commentary" just because there was an RfC that thought a single review of a movie could be used, in a limited context. Please understand: Found usable for one context, never means found usable for all contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It does follow because the sourcing argument being used against it is the same rejected in the first RFC. Not only is this a similar situation (actually one that should be less, not more, restrictive, as I said above), but it's the same freaking article. RS status depends on context, but established precedents aren't irrelevant. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
One use is not an established precedent, as has been explained many times. Looking at that RfC, more than a few supporters indicated Breitbart was a generally questionable source and shouldn't be used for more than a movie review.
WP:RS says that opinions about groups, even very loosely defined, should be given more care, not less. Now, you're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat the policies. There's not much point in doing that. __ E L A Q U E A T E
04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It establishes a precedent if the same issues are at play, especially in the same article. And no, most respondents approved Breitbart as RS because its own attributed opinions were being quoted. There was nothing singular or magical about film reviews somehow being ok when other opinions weren't. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Breitbart.com is not a reliable source and qualifies as a questionable source as outlined by multiple facets of
    WP:QS
    .
"Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts" Even the WP article for Breitbart.com outlines multiple instances where the site did little to no fact checking and/or published stories that were blatantly false or had no evidence to support them. On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating and has hosted numerous other blogs/articles that received "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ratings. Other news outlets have criticized Breitbart's lack of fact checking including the Washington Post, New York Magazine, and The Daily Beast.
"Questionable sources are those that have...an apparent conflict of interest." Conflict of interest is defined in WP:QS to include "Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors" Breitbart.com writes multiple articles promoting Fox News polls and their parent company which also advertises on the site. They have also written and published articles attacking their competitors like the New York Daily News when Shapiro called them "hacks". The WP:QS "conflict of interest" goes on to say "news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors." This article exposes an apparent conflict of interest in an article published by Breitbart.com. The sources for conflict of interest also go on to say "They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company." and "a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." Breitbart.com has multiple apparent conflict of interest as defined by the references in WP:QS.
"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional" This is backed up with multiple sources referring to Breitbart's articles, authors, and positions as extremist.
"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip" This can be observed by reading numerous incidents on the WP breitbart.com article in the "Controversies" section. These instances include the "Friends of Hamas" controversy, the "Paul Krugmen" hoax, and the Loretta Lynch gossip story.
"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views...that rely heavily on...personal opinion." Breitbart.com relies heavily on its personal opinion blogs/articles from numerous contributors and editors. They rely so heavily on it that even the lead for the WP article refers to Breitbart.com as an "opinion website". It's not rare to see opinion pieces plastered all over their front page while only a few links are actually credited to "Breitbart News".
Breitbart.com is a questionable on multiple accounts. The funny thing is that it only needs to meet one of the identifiers to be considered a questionable source and here it clearly qualifies for multiple identifiers. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
A wall of text rehashing prior discussions on the RS/N noticeboard which repeatedly found Breitbart to be RS for opinions cited as opinions seems a waste here and the added implicit claim that Breitbart is so extremist as to be anathema is absurd. It is cited by WaPo, NYT, LAT etc. which would belie the claim that it is somehow to the extreme right of the KKK or the like. Sorry -- this has already been discussed - and dismissed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's questionable on multiple counts. This isn't a "dismissed" concern just because you disagree with the assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
And banging the opinions cited as opinions drum ignores the fact that
WP:RS does not treat all opinions the same. Being found reliable for some opinions not about people, does not translate to being found usable in articles for any opinion, and especially not about third parties. This is true of all sources, not just Breitbart. Every time you assert that Breitbart is a usable source for any opinion, you're misrepresenting actual policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E
15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
At least four discussions on the article talk page and at noticeboards disagree with your demurral. 0 for 4 is not a strong case for your position. Including at an article talk page closing of an RfC Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review? et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a simple, simple point. Being found as a usable source for one item, doesn't whitelist it for all items. The RfC you point to is for a movie review, not an opinion about people. Looking through the archives here at the RS/N, I can't find any other discussions where Breitbart wasn't challenged as a questionable source. Your "et al" doesn't exist.
Those discussions don't override policy and you're trying to dismiss the arguments made with your own strawman argument. WP:QS clearly outlines when questionable sources can be used as reliable sources for their own comments. This was never in contention because it's clearly outlined in the policy. However, WP:QS and other policies do limit where questionable sources can be used as reliable sources. That's the part you and others have repeatedly ignored in the RFC and in the discussion. This issue has been raised by myself and others and ignored by you. WP:QS says they should ONLY be used on material about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. The WP article "America: Imagine a World Without Her" is not material about breitbart.com or Shapiro, nor is it an article about one of the two. So WP policy is clear that it can not be used. Now, on the WP Ben Shapiro article, if you want to say "On may 20, 2013 Shapiro criticized leftist film critics panning a movie" then you could use Breitbart.com as a reliable source because it would act as a primary source for material about itself. That's what those clauses in WP:QS apply to and they clearly include the aspect of the RFC that you and others are clinging to, but also include where and how it can be used and where and how it can't be used. You know, the part that you keep ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The criteria for assessing a source's reliability include
    WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability. MastCell Talk
    20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perfection is hard to achieve, and is not required for a general reputation for reliability. Yes, arguing from small sets of examples is problematic. But overall, all I can say is that "it's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Except your assertions are not only disputed, but you totally ignored the fact that we're discussing attributed quotes by political pundits, including political group blogs that have no editor staff (unlike Breitbart), so "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" don't enter into it. As for your baseless personal shot, beware the boomerang. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If you think NBC News, or CBS, or the New York Times don't meet our criteria for reliability, then you should definitely raise that concern elsewhere on this board. However, it's not relevant to a discussion of Breitbart's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or lack thereof. MastCell Talk 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I made no such claim. I pointed out that the argument used to attack Breitbart's reputation was pitifully inadequate, but that's a tangential issue. More importantly, its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is irrelevant to its reliability as a source for Shapiro's quoted words, unless you think the source is so untrustworthy that it can't be trusted to accurately relay its own editor's comments. VictorD7 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've told him how red herring arguments aren't relevant numerous times, I'm glad someone else understands that basic concept of reasoning and critical thinking.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Everything you're spewing are red herring arguments, as is the notion of "reputation for fact checking" when we're talking about covering attributed, subjective political pundit opinions, not news sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, we're talking about the reliability of a source and WP:QS specifically identifies sources that rely heavily on opinion pieces as questionable sources. So it makes ZERO sense to try and argue that because it's an opinion that suddenly it's reliable because WP policy explicitly says that sources that rely heavily on opinions are questionable and that they have very limited use in WP, limited to use on material about themselves. Again, that's why you can't make a false dichotomy on global climate change between "support/against" and then start citing Ken Hamm's opinions all over the place. Those opinions are mainly derived from questionable/self published sources and are limited to content about Ken Hamm himself. Also, if the source, Breitbart.com, is questionable then it quotes from it certainly can't be used to make contentious claims about others. That's directly in WP policy and it's not a red herring argument as it directly applies to the quote and source in question. You might want to look up what a red herring argument is.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Breitbart.com is no more a questionable source than CBS News, the Rolling Stone, or MSNBC.
I am sure there are editors here would would love to see this
WP:NPOV/N--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but what WP qualifies as a questionable source has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions about other sources. The qualifications are explicitly outlined in WP:QS. So your red herring arguments based on false equivalencies are irrelevant and are logically fallacious.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Since you personally added partisan bloggers' quotes from the Huffington Post currently in the same section it's difficult to take your claims seriously. You also apparently support the numerous leftist quotes from other blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion that currently reside in the section, and haven't tried to remove a single one. Of course your flawed interpretation of QS has already been rejected by RFC, explicitly finding Breitbart RS for its own attributed opinions (material about itself) there to boot. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Partisain bloggers has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. Opinions from reliable sources are allowed to be partisan and biased, but that only applies to sources that are considered reliable by WP guidelines. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source by nearly every single identifier described in WP:QS and I've specifically outlined them above. Also, I didn't interpret WP:QS, I've quoted it directly and an article about a film does not qualify as "material about itself". That's not interpretation, that's a basic understanding of the english language. Furthermore, the RFC ignored my arguments which is not rejection. Again, you misinterpret and misrepresent what actually occurred in the RFC and is happening here again. You and others blatantly ignoring WP policy to pursue red herring arguments or put forward arguments already refuted.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Your own argument asserts Breitbart is "QS" because it "relies heavily on personal opinion", so the sources you support being partisan blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion most definitely is relevant to reliability, by your own logic. Given that, and the rest of the debunked nonsense you've repeated here, the most charitable interpretation is that your own understanding of the English language is lacking. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That's merely one aspect of my argument and it's explicitly listed as an identifier of a questionable source in WP:QS polciy. Furthermore, the reliability of other blogs has no bearing on the reliability of Breitbart.com. That's why this is a red herring argument because an assessment of the reliability of other blogs is not relevant to an assessment of the reliability of Breitbart.com. Nothing in WP:QS policy mandates a comparison of sources to each other to establish reliability. Instead, they list empirical qualities that make a source a questionable source and Breitbart.com meets nearly every single one of those qualities, making it a questionable source. Also, though it's not relevant, those other blogs are from sources that are generally considered reliable, have a reputation for fact checking, and have meaningful editorial oversight. That's why those blogs are considered reliable since they are the extension of a reliable source. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, so there is no reliability for Breitbart.com to lend to its blogs. Though blogs are primarily opinion, the reliable sources I've previously referenced are not reliant primarily on opinion. This is contrary to Breitbart.com whose almost entire front page is filled with hyperlinks to opinion pieces and even its own WP article calls it an "opinion website". Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source and you've done NOTHING to actually refute the arguments above. Your rebuttals have mostly evoked a "But mommy, those other sites do it too" mentality which is a logical fallacy to begin with and is a false equivalency because most of those other sites/blogs more closely adhere to WP reliability standards than Breitbart.com does.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm exposing the numerous and intellectually fatal internal inconsistencies in your position, illustrating the fallacy of embracing it. And this noticeboard's sections frequently include comparative mentions or lists of other sources, so that's a lame dodge by you. Also, not that it matters to your QS interpretation since you've conceded your championed sources rely heavily on opinion (making them "questionable" by your logic), but none of them have been found "RS" in any conversation I've seen, while Breitbart, contrary to your claims, actually has been explicitly found to be RS by consensus, and on the article in question to boot. In fact they all have roughly similar or worse reputations than Breitbart. Again, most of them are merely opinion blogs, while Breitbart is a large, diverse news/opinion institution that employs teams of editors, reporters, and critics.VictorD7 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The only thing you've exposed is your inability to construct a valid argument based on WP policy. After all of these responses you've YET to actually quote WP policy that says that questionable sources are determined by comparing them to other sources. On the other hand, I've quoted multiple parts of WP policy that do define questionable sources and explained in detail how Breitbart.com meets the qualifications of a questionable source. Again, your mentioning the RFC is pointless in determining whether Breitbart.com is a questionable source, since WP policy explicitly states that Questionable Sources should only be used as reliable sources on material about themselves. So a source can still be a questionable source and be reliable for opinions about itself, HOWEVER those sources/opinions can only be used in material about THEMSELVES which is the part you and the RFC blatantly ignored. Furthermore, your baseless assertions do nothing to refute the arguments made above. First of all, I never engaged you in conversation about other sources because I know it's a logical fallacy. Secondly, we never established whether those other sources were heavily reliant on personal opinion like Breitbart.com is. This is why your argument is also a false equivalency. The fact that you keep repeating this irrelevant and logically fallacious argument shows the dire situation you're in when it comes to trying to pretend that Breitbart.com is not a questionable source.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
To the extent your drivel here approaches coherence in places, it only further annihilates your own position while confirming mine. The RFC explicitly found Breitbart reliable for its own film review on the article, complete with a link to the review and article section in the RFC intro and everything, directly contracting your "QS" characterization and attempt to limit the source's use here. The RFC didn't "ignore" your argument, especially since the intro also linked to the discussion where we each laid out our arguments. It rejected your interpretation. I've refuted your position by quoting from numerous policies and guidelines explicitly stating that attributed opinions aren't held to the same standards as facts in Wikipedia's voice, observing that your characterization of Breitbart is disputed, examining the impractical empirical impact your interpretation would have on Wikipedia, and exposing your one sided application of your own invented policy, a gross
WP:NPOV violation. You also provided no evidence supporting your preposterous claim that discussing more than one source in a discussion is somehow a "logical fallacy" or against policy. That you're actually implying there's dispute over whether sources like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, Slant, Indiewire, the Huffington Post, etc. rely heavily or entirely on personal opinion shows how desperately dire your own situation is. VictorD7 (talk
) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Your strawman arguments are indicative of your inability to substantiate your position. Never did I say that "discussing more than one source in a discussion is...against policy." It is a red herring issue, though, which is substantiated by understanding the definition of a red herring logical fallacy. Sorry, but the reliability of other sources is not relevant to the reliability of Breitbart.com. The only way it would be relevant is if I or others were arguing that WP should be represented by the "strongest of sources" which is not my argument. My arguments and others' arguments hinge on specific WP policy which you have NOT refuted. Instead, you resort to strawman arguments and red herring arguments, instead of addressing the policies. Also, linking to something is not addressing it or "rejecting" which actually requires comment on the arguments made and a valid refutation, neither of which were provided in the RFC. Again, you keep saying "interpretation" but there is none, I quote directly from WP:QS and WP:Questionable which explicitly limit questionable sources like Breitbart.com to "material about themselves" and furthermore, say that they can NOT make contentious claims about others. Sorry, but you nor a RFC gets to ignore WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Exposing the absurdity of your interpretation (in part) by showing the hypocritical and inconsistent way in which you seek to apply it is neither a straw man argument nor a red herring, as it gets to the heart of how logical your interpretation is. I and others have quoted from QS and other policies too. A difference of interpretation exists, including the meaning of "material about themselves" and how it applies to attributed quotes. You simply ignoring that doesn't make it go away, nor does your refusal to answer whether the other film critics and pundits quoted should be removed since they fall under the same QS criteria you attempted to single out Breitbart for give any credibility to your position.
WP:NPOV is policy too, and you can't violate it. The RFC linked to the discussion where I did refute your QS argument, you repeated it and I addressed it in the RFC itself, and the closer directly told you when you pestered him on his talk page that the community was unpersuaded by your QS argument. The RFC consensus finding itself is in direct contradiction to your QS interpretation, as it finds Breitbart reliable for its own film review in that article. Policy and guidelines also speak of a hierarchy of sources, implying comparisons where editors seek the best one(s) they can find for certain situations, but that's a tangential note here. There is no rational, policy based reason to exclude Breitbart film reviewers and pundits, especially while leaving in the section's others. VictorD7 (talk
) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Nope, "material about themselves" requires no interpretation and a WP article about a movie isn't material about Breitbart.com or Shapiro. You didn't refute the QS argument because you don't understand how forensics work. This is why you constantly resort to logical fallacies and use red herring arguments, instead of making valid rebuttals. If you want to make noticeboard discussions about the reliability of other sources, then feel free. However, this discussion is about the reliability of Breitbart.com and the fact is that it's not a reliable source. I've given multiple examples and instances how it qualifies as a questionable source by WP policy and neither you nor anyone else has refuted those. The rationality of excluding Breitbart.com is because it's a questionable source. That's not a violation of NPOV, because there are other reliable sources that can be used instead. This assertion of yours if based on a false premise, which isn't surprising because it once again demonstrates that your arguments are inherently fallacious and invalid.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
All rules and laws require interpretation. Sometimes it's clear and easy, though in this case it's foggy enough that you have an interpretation that differs from that of most editors. Once again, everything you claimed above is false, and clearly your own mastery of forensics and logic is deficient. Rather than repeating my refutation of your interpretation yet again, I'll only add that
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV further reinforces that "material about themselves" includes quoted opinions, as it treats an attributed quote as simply reporting an opinion: "For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre."" In other words, quotes are treated by policy as material about those being quoted. I'll also point out again the absurdity of your entire QS argument here when you personally added partisan blogger quotes attacking D'Souza to the article, and have refused to answer whether the section's other sources, which almost all rely heavily on personal opinion and have no reputation for fact checking whatsoever, the inclusion of which you apparently support, are QS in your interpretation. Internal consistency is a cornerstone of rational discourse. VictorD7 (talk
) 20:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
All rules don't require interpretation and there is no interpretation needed for a policy that explicitly says questionable sources are not allowed to make "contentious claims about others". Also, the part of WP:AttributePOV you reference only applies to reliable sources. Yes, if the source is reliable, then those sources can be used to make claims about others, like John Doe having baseball skills. If the source is not a reliable source, then it can't be used to make claims about others, especially if they're contentious. Nothing in what you've quoted refers to "material about themselves". Logical consistency is important but I haven't done anything inconsistent. You use false equivalency to try and equate Breitbart.com to other sites which is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, the additions that you reference were criticisms about a SCENE IN THE MOVIE and its inclusion by the director and not about D'Souza as a person. So they differ by two different reasons and there is nothing logically inconsistent. Again, the reliability of those other sources have no relevance to the reliability of Breitbart.com and this is, once again, a red herring argument that you're trying to pursue. You mention "rational discourse" but seem to not understand the basics of it.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Interpretation is the foundation of intelligence, so yes, everything requires interpretation. And no,
WP:RSOPINION establishes that some sources may not be reliable for facts in Wikipedia's voice, but can be used with attribution. Your failure to acknowledge that (and the fact that RS "always depends on context", etc.) with your "only applies to reliable sources" refrain, as if sources are either inherently reliable or unreliable across the board, is one of your position's salient fatal flaws. It's always about context. The rest of your post is irrational drivel that I and other editors have already debunked. I'll continue to note your telling refusal to elucidate your interpretation (no "logical fallacy" on my part) by answering whether you believe QS applies to the section's other sources, especially the partisan blogs you added (which do personally attack D'Souza; it's unclear why you feel that and mentioning a scene are mutually exclusive, especially when their commentary transcends it; it's also unclear what that has to do with it being "questionable" or not; after all, Shapiro is merely commenting on publicly published works; talk about your virtually non stop logical inconsistencies.). Given your gross inconsistency in this matter, I'm being charitable by describing your position as an "interpretation". VictorD7 (talk
) 19:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I've already addressed and refuted your claims about WP:attributepov and WP:rsopinion. They speak to reliable sources and specifically say "some" which does not mean "every" sources can be used with attribution. You've failed to refute the rebuttals I've made against these and the examples I've provided. Furthermore, sources are inherently reliable which is how we have an entire WP article describing which sources are generally/inherently reliable and which sources are generally not reliable, self published, or questionable. A self-published source will always be a self-published source and has to follow WP guidelines for self-published sources. It's the same thing for questionable sources, which have to follow the guidelines for questionable sources. WP:QS speaks to such guidelines and even includes examples where questionable sources may be used RELIABLY, but still sets LIMITS on what those sources can be used for. Nothing you've provided refutes this, and instead you're clearly still set on pursuing red herring arguments.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You've failed to refute anything I've said and the fallacies are all yours.
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV help define "reliable sources for different contexts. "Some" is more than none, which shoots down your contention that the same standards that apply for general news coverage apply for covering attributed opinions, and "some" is vague enough that it could mean everything but napkin scribblings. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."" Since Shapiro is employed as an editor at Breitbart, this is a classic example of Breitbart being a reliable source for his quoted, subjective opinion. You're simply wrong. Sources aren't inherently reliable or unreliable. Per the Identifying reliable sources FAQ: "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual." There is no rational reason to conclude that Breitbart is anything but fine for sourcing its own editor's quote. Your QS argument, both how and if it applies to Breitbart (as opposed to the section's other, mostly partisan group blog sources?) and precisely whether the limitations prohibit editors from simply covering attributed opinions, has been heard and rejected. You don't have to keep repeating yourself. VictorD7 (talk
) 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I've refuted you outright and completely. WP:attibutepov only describes how to use sources in a neutral point of view by attributing them. It has NOTHING to do with reliability which is why it's not on WP:reliable or WP:verifiable. Also, you've made yet another logical fallacy in the form of a strawman argument. No one said sources are "always" reliable, they are "generally" reliable. Yes, peer reviewed sources are the strongest and most reliable sources but a journal article about skin cancer can't be used as a reliable source to describe string theory. However, it is inherently reliable so long as it's related to the WP article barring a few other exceptions. Self-Published sources will ALWAYS be self published sources and the same is for questionable sources. So the parts of WP:reliable and WP:verifiable that outline the usage of such sources will ALWAYS apply. Sorry, you can't just ignore/reject WP policy and nothing in your post refutes this fact. WP:QS clearly describes when a questionable source can be used reliably, but places strict limits on where and how that source can be used. You are ignoring and violating these limits and there is no other Wikipedia policy that overrides those limits. Scoobydunk (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Setting aside the fact that

WP:NPOV policy by adding to the article quotes from partisan blogs that are as "questionable" as Breitbart under your own policy interpretation, while refusing to address that hypocritical logical inconsistency in a productive, collaborative manner. VictorD7 (talk
) 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't refuted anything I've said and you have made a strawman argument. You have not refuted this, you've merely asserted that you didn't, but you did. Your inclusion of the word "always" was not part of the argument. But just to be clear, if you're arguing the antithesis then you're saying that a self-published source can cease being a self-published source? Also, all the questions you've raised about politicians, Stalin, and Hitler, they can be quoted so long as the article is on "material about themselves". So when talking about WWII, then those quotes can be used because both were directly involved in the topic. Again, WP:BIASED speaks to sources that are already reliable and it explicitly says this. WP:RSOPINION speaks to both reliable sources and questionable sources but doesn't override the restrictions set in place regarding self-published sources and questionable sources. You and other editors have repeatedly ignored policy and haven't refuted the fact that questionable source can't make contentious claims about others. Also, I'm not ignoring WP:NPOV because I've said multiple times that reliable sources can be used to express those opinions. Also, Breitbart.com is a questionable source for more reasons that just it's poor reputation for fact checking and its heavy reliance on personal opinion, and I've outlined those without being refuted above. Even then, you've yet to prove that DailyKos, Salon, Huffpo, Alternet, WSJ and seemingly every source that gets presented qualify as questionable sources. So this is a red herring argument in the form of a false equivalency. The reliability of those other sources have nothing to do with the reliability of Breitbart.com which is a questionable source as is clearly defined by WP policy.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart isn't a self published source, and you've totally failed to establish that it meets any QS criteria that the other sources you list don't (though I don't believe anyone has called the WSJ "questionable"). Source comparisons are useful in explaining and examining your policy argument, particularly in regards to internal consistency, so they have a lot to do with this discussion. Since you repeatedly claimed sources can be "inherently" reliable (that means divorced from context), and I've quoted the guideline page stressing that reliability "always depends on context", your position on that score is refuted. No straw man. Your post contains such conceptual inaccuracies, fallacious claims of logical fallacies, and repeats material already addressed and/or debunked by me and other posters, including your false charges against others that actually apply to you. You failed to explain how your QS interpretation allows for sources considered not generally reliable for facts in Wikipedia's voice to be used with attribution, when Wikipedia undeniably establishes that a realm of such sources that become reliable with attribution exists. And no,
WP:NPOV/due weight rather than sourcing policy. Obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to quote Hitler or Stalin randomly, but Shapiro, by contrast, is a notable political pundit whose opinion carries weight in an article or section about the spectrum of such political pundit opinion, especially one in which the other pundits quoted (including the ones you added) are far less noteworthy than he is. VictorD7 (talk
) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question about if a self-published source ceases to be a self-published source. Why is that? You're the one saying I'm wrong about this which means you must believe that a self-published source can magically stop being a self-published source. Source comparisons do nothing to refute the multiple examples of evidence I gave that prove Breitbart.com is a questionable source. You haven't refuted those points/examples referring to conflict of interest, lack of meaningful fact checking, being heavily based on personal opinion, using unsubstantiated gossip/rumors, and considered extremist by other media publications/authorities in the field. If you did refute each and every single one of these then please provide the diffs, because I fear I might have missed them. To my knowledge, none of these examples I gave of how Breitbart.com is a questionable source were refuted. You and others have only engaged in red herring arguments which don't do anything to refute these claims about Breitbart.com. So how about instead of just asserting things, you actually link to the diffs. Final note, nothing in WP:Biased, WP:RSopinion, or WP:AttributeNPOV remove the limits set by WP:QS and WP:Aboutself. You've yet to prove/show that they do.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


Was the open RfC regarding Breitbart's reliability in this context announced here? It's on the article's talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I would say that Breitbart is a textbook questionable source (as mentioned above, it has always been considered that in the past, and I'm not really seeing anything that would change that), especially due to its reputation for poor fact-checking. Simply having a political POV doesn't necessarily make a site questionable in all contexts, but having such an extensive history of fact-checking errors in combination with a style of writing that frequently blurs the line between opinion and fact certainly does. It can still sometimes be cited to illustrate the opinions of its commentators, like any other questionable source, but only when a more reputable site supports the relevance of those opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have never seen a discussion establishing a consensus that Breitbart is "questionable", and your assertion about its alleged "reputation" is disputed. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • well, yes, you are disputing it. based apparently on ignoring the multiple sources presented the definitely show its questionable nature and none providing evidence that any sources see it as reliable. such a "dispute" is hard to give credence to.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • False. Lots of editors are disputing it, the invalid arguments against the source have been addressed, and numerous sources citing it, especially for its own opinions, meaning they view it as reliable for at least such purposes, have been provided. Again, I've seen no discussion establishing a consensus that Breitbart is "questionable" or non RS at all, especially for its own attributed opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with Breitbart is that its accuracy is not only dubious, but sources are often actively misrepresented. Consider the recent case with the Gun control articles, where a newspaper story claiming that general crime figures are being under-reported in the UK was spun by Breitbart into an article about how UK gun law wasn't working as gun homicide was clearly increasing. This is not simply synthesis, but actively untrue; there was no suggestion from the story that was the case, and it would actually be impossible as firearms crime is reported separately - something the writer would have known. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
How does that affect opinions from notable persons cited as opinion? Breitbart falsifies editorial columns to make people have different opinions that they write that they have? I generally feel that where an opinion is properly cited as opinion that fretting about anything else is worthless. Collect (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There are really two parts to citing an opinion. First, of course, you need a source to prove that the person actually said that; Breitbart is a valid source to prove that one of its authors said something, since that doesn't really require that it be a
WP:UNDUE states that we're supposed to give weight to opinions based on their coverage in reliable sources, essentially (this prevents people from just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article); to quote Breitbart in an article, you therefore usually need a second source to show that whatever quote you're inserting meets that standard. --Aquillion (talk
) 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, multiple facets of WP policy relies on sources being considered reliable and Breitbart.com is clearly not one. However, I don't feel you need to look at the specific various policies that limit their usage to reliable sources because WP:QS and WP:Questionable both limit the usage of questionable sources to material about themselves. That whole concept is what prevents people from "just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article" and it remains consistent throughout multiple WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you acknowledge that Breitbart is RS for its own authors' opinions. That's the question here.
WP:NPOV violation. I suppose one could say that Breitbart's noteworthiness in this context is established by other sources frequently citing it and/or documenting its extremely high traffic ratings. More specifically, Ben Shapiro himself is notable by Wikipedia standards, meaning he rates his own article (unlike most of the other pundits quoted in the section, and he's a UCLA/Harvard Law trained political scientist and media analyst who is a multiple times best selling author, has been interviewed as a professional pundit on virtually every major media tv network, and has had his work cited by countless media outlets. All this firmly establishes him as a political pundit worth quoting if we have a section dedicated to such punditry, and since he wrote an entire article about the reception to this film we would be derelict in omitting it, especially since his view is so widely shared by the population. VictorD7 (talk
) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No, trying to maintain NPOV doesn't mean that questionable sources suddenly become reliable and merit inclusion. Find a different source that's reliable instead of trying to include a questionable source which multiple WP policies explicitly prohibit.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Might you show me where opinions properly cited as opinions are likely at all to be falsified? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Might you make a rebuttal that relevant to the arguments being made?Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
He did. VictorD7 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As multiple editors have noted Breitbart is reliable for a statement about what is said in Breitbart.
This is yet another case of people choosing the wrong policy to argue about. This isn't a reliability issue... It's really more a DUE WEIGHT issue (and there are other policies and guideliens that we have to consider as well). The question isn't may we cite Breitbart for Breitbart's opinion (clearly we may)... the question we should be asking is: should we mention Breitbart's opinion in the first place?
That is more an editorial judgement call... The section in question (discussing the reception of a movie) can basically be boiled down to this: Reviewers with a liberal political bias panned the movie, reviewers with a conservative political bias praised it. The rest of the section consists of examples of liberals panning, and conservatives praising. The question is... do we need the examples (I am not sure we do), and (if so) which examples should we use?. There are lots of reliable conservative news outlets that reviewed the movie... and most of them essentially say the same thing that Breitbart says. This means that while we are allowed use Breitbart... we don't have to use Breitbart... we could use one of the others instead.
In other words... the debate that we should be having is: Given that the conservative viewpoint is that the movie was great... what is the best conservative source to use as an example of that viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
No. Once you determine what weight is merited, the articles/opinions used to express that weight still must meet WP reliable source criteria. That's the part that's relevant here. You, as an editor, can't take a facebook post from Joe and quote that as the representation of the conservative viewpoint. Yes, there are numerous policies that need to be considered in every edit, but this is the relevant one that we're discussing now.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
and it is not reliable for claims made about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes This continual attempt to argue this issue is getting quite old. It appears simply to be an attempt to wear everyone out until they give up. Arzel (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

YES Ranks in the top 500 (US) on Alexa, and is as reliable as any of the top liberal sites. We accept the NY Times, a self-admitted liberal site as reliable despite its gaffs and mistakes. [25] [26]. [27] [28] [29], and I can go on and on. Atsme☯Consult 15:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The NYT has a 160+ year history of reporting, with 114 Pullizers. That they fell for a government-created misdirection is regrettable, but so did most other media. Reliability does not require perfection. And why you think the opinion of a WallMart corporate shill casts doubt on an article criticising WallMart is somewhat unclear to me. Breibart.com, on the other hand, has an 8 year history, and about one major scandal per year, even ignoring the overall bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
👍 1 user loves this. - That's almost exactly what I was going to say, but I was too lazy to actually type it.- MrX 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ok - so you're saying we can excuse mistakes by the NYTimes based on their history and Pulitzers, but we don't excuse mistakes made by others? Excuse me, but Snowden didn't even trust the Times, a pretty major blow for such a major story. [32]. PEW Research published the following a few months ago: [33] The 21st Century is an amazing time. Regardless, this isn't about NYT, it's about Breitbart, so I grabbed this link for you: [34] Atsme☯Consult 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer you not put words in my mouth. But worded more neutrally: Yes, we do tolerate occasional mistakes by otherwise quality sources. We lose confidence if the proportion of mistakes is big enough. You seem to be at some kind of
shotgun argumentation now - the decision of the Times not to publish a certain story may be regrettable (although, of course, in this case its hardly a sign of liberal bias, but rather the opposite). But it does not affect the reliability of stories they do publish. Why do you think the fact that Breibart gets its readers from Facebook and conservative echo chambers relevant? --Stephan Schulz (talk
) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I promise not to hand feed you. As for the NYT having a liberal bias....well, read the following: [35] As for their mistakes, please don't make me list them because as you stated above, they have a 160+ year history. Whoosh! Let's save that argument for a NYT debate. I do find it rather disconcerting that the liberal bias that dominates WP today absolutely challenges everything conservative, which in itself is POV and explains why there are so many disputes at ANI, etc. I don't typically cite any sources before I check multiple trusted sources (you call them reliable) to see if they corroborate the story. I did a brief stint as field producer/shooter for CNN years ago - back when the news was actually the news. I've written articles for various pubs & newspapers, published my own, and I've also been the poor sucker who was interviewed, so I have a pretty good handle on the way things operate. That's why I try to check several different sources before I use any of them. It's hard enough to get away from the political pundits, therefore the least we can do as editors is corroborate the information among the sources. I tend to keep a close eye on the anchors and reporters who break away from the politically and/or corporate controlled media, and an even closer eye on the ones who have the intestinal fortitude to blow the whistle. Bottomline, Breitbart is as reliable as any of the others in mainstream. They've ruffled a lot of feathers over the years, but oh well. That's the business of reporting. They ALL make mistakes. Do your homework, and don't believe everything you read. Check out multiple sources, and move along. Atsme☯Consult 03:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's one book by two authors almost no one has heard of whose own care for accuracy and fact checking hasn't been examined (not to mention bias), and it also criticized The Huffington Post and Salon.com: "A proliferation of Web-based outlets like the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report and Salon.com take the news and craft it to appeal to the political, social, and economic interests of niche audiences. What we see now, with the rise of subjectivity as news, are accounts of reality that jut away from journalistic norms and, too often, contain a litany of information that may or may not be true."
Good thing we're only discussing attributed opinion coverage in this context, and not news coverage, not that a single obscure opinion would be decisive on the latter front anyway. The question here is whether Breitbart is reliable for its own editor's opinion in a published article with his signature, and the answer is clearly "yes". VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • [37] Here's one where experts Peter Dreier and Christopher R. Martin talk about the unreliability of Breitbart and his websites. Peter Dreier is the Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics, and chair of the Urban and Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College. Christopher Martin has a Ph.D. from University of Michigan. Both have numerous works that are published in scholarly journals pertaining to media, politics, and communication. When regarding Breitbart they say "His websites are propaganda vehicles for building a political movement." They've also published a peer reviewed scholarly article about how Breitbart used his websites to distort coverage of Acorn. Breitbart.com is still not a reliable source for the numerous reasons mentioned above, but having Ph.D.s that have been published in scholarly journals relay the point is worth mentioning.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's telling that you link to Alternet, a far left propaganda outfit whose very name is a boast about its own fringe status. That they publish there only serves as a classic Red Flag regarding their own credibility on this issue. That doesn't mean we couldn't use Dreier or Martin as sources, but it does mean we'd have to take their extreme political bias into account, and probably attribute anything we use from them. VictorD7 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe this article originated on the Hufffington Post, but that doesn't matter as both persons have recognized and claimed the article on their professional websites. So now not only is breitbart.com a questionable source as defined by WP policy, but it's also denounced as a propaganda vehicle by experts in the field.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Your "expert" evidence based on far left propaganda blogs is unpersuasive. This is nothing more than leftists attacking a conservative source, as their embrace of Alternet shows. It's also irrelevant to this reliability discussion, since, again, we aren't using Breitbart as a news source in this case, but as a source for its own opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No, this is the opinion of two experts with Ph.D's in the related field and multiple peer reviewed articles published about the subject who comment on the lack of reliability, distortion, and propaganda Breitbart's websites are used for. It's not irrelevant because it part of what determines a source's reliability is its perception in the field. Here we have two experts in the field who describe Breitbart's websites' reputations.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No, my description was accurate. You linked to their column on a far left propaganda blog. Having a degree doesn't automatically make someone an unquestioned authority, particularly when this isn't a scientific issue (or even a journalistic evaluation issue). That they publish far leftist propaganda is a classic red flag when deciding how much credence to give their evaluations of a conservative news/opinion source. That said, we're simply covering opinions here, not facts in Wikipedia's voice, so even without the extreme bias red flags their commentary is off point here. VictorD7 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
They are authorities and have the credentials to prove it which are unrivaled by anyone you've presented as an "authority". If experts of this caliber in the related field think Breitbart.com is nothing more than a propaganda machine, then that is worth noting in this discussion. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No, they aren't authorities on the topic actually being discussed, which isn't Breitbart's journalistic credentials, and we're under no obligation to treat an obviously partisan commentator posting on a far left propaganda blog as an unquestioned authority anyway. His activism is a classic red flag trumping his degree, meaning we should take his words with a caution. VictorD7 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The topic being discussed here is the reliability of Breitbart.com, so "yes" they are authorities on the subject and are relevant to this discussion. FYI they are far more credible than Shapiro unless Shapiro also has a Ph.D. in the related field and has published multiple peer reviewed papers which is WP's highest standard of reliability.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's awful to see this, as editors who don't share the sources political leanings attack a right leaning reliable news source, which has editorial oversight over its published content. I view this as a way of

neutral content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
) 20:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As someone already said above, "Breitbart is a textbook questionable source" - Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Nice
personal attack there MastCell. Great use of Shooting the messenger
fallacy.
What textbooks? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not "shooting the messenger". I'm saying that your message is so badly mistaken that it raises serious questions about your judgement with regard to sourcing. You've stated that you believe breitbart.com to possess a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (our site's definition of reliability), and that it is more or less equivalently reliable as the New York Times or CBS News. Are those your actual beliefs? If so, I think we run a serious risk by allowing you to edit BLPs. MastCell Talk 01:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Again with the personal attacks, rather unbecoming from someone who holds a mop. Please stop, and focus on the subject!
Breitbart.com is the equivalent of Huffington Post, yet no one is attacking the Huffington Post.
If Breitbart.com was not on the right of the political spectrum it wouldn't be under the level of scrutiny it is. Same goes with Fox News, or as those who oppose its political leanings in its editorializing "Faux News"; whereas its counterpart on the left of the political spectrum, MSNBC also does not get the same level of scrutiny.
Disagree with the political leanings of the source all day long, but the source IMHO has a reputation for fact checking, as much as the other sources listed, and although a biased source, should be taken as a reliable source. If the content is questioned, corroborate it with other sources which the editor does not find objectionable. That adds additional reliable sources to verify the content, as well as adds weight to the content (as more than one source covers it).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If you raise the question of whether the Huffington Post is reliable, I'll give the same answer as I do for Breitbart: no. However, I'll admit that I do seem to be in the minority on the issue of the Huffington Post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
While there are parts of the Huff Po that report on Bigfoot and UFOs, other parts of the Huff Po have won a Pulitzer. [38] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Can those who are claiming that Brietbart is a reliably published source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy please

provide some evidence. Otherwise the multiple sources provided showing the reputation for not being a reliable source stand unopposed and your protestations to the contrary will be considered noted and disregarded. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
21:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you insisting that it is not a reliable source for opinions of notable persons properly cited as opinion? This is not a matter of "contentious claims about celebrities" but of whether what we would allow from an SPS of a notable person (whose opinions we can already use) is disallowed from an actual organization (Breitbart). I tend to be open to almost all opinions of notable persons being cited as opinion, even if they are published by RT. Or would you suggest the opinions are being somehow faked? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Good luck with that. I've been asking for evidence for six months and all I've gotten is insults and bluster. Gamaliel (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I already posted evidence of Breitbart and Shapiro being cited by the NY Times and other outfits on the appropriate talk page (e.g. [39], [40]), and a single Pulitzer doesn't make all that Bigfoot/UFO stuff at Huffpo go away. BTW, if you want some hilarity, here's the Daily Kos in 2011 with an extended piece accusing Breitbart of hacking Congressman Weiner's account and faking the scandal. They even attack the NY Times and CNN for covering Breitbart's report. Of course this was before Weiner retracted his false claims, apologized to Breitbart (after mainstream media prodding at the press conference) for lying, and ultimately resigned. The Daily Kos is currently used as a source in the same section at issue here. It was added by Gamaliel, the poster above who just made that false claim about other editors. That said, as Collect stated, this journalistic reputation line is irrelevant since we're just quoting these sources for their own opinions. VictorD7 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"is irrelevant since we're just quoting these sources for their own opinions" -
ABOUT OTHER LIVING PEOPLE. Reliability and fact checking is absolutely relevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
22:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
From
WP:IRS on reliability standards changing when attribution is involved. VictorD7 (talk
) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
That's like asking Prove to me that you don't beat your wife/significant other/partner? It's a loaded question. Breitbart is a reliable source because it meets the criteria set forth in
WP:IRS, it employs an editorial staff, stands behind what it publishes, and employees professional journalist, to write it stories. It cites is sources, saying where they get their information. It is not a group blog, but a source for news and information. Sure it is partisan, but so is HuffPo.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
) 23:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:IRS demands "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which Breitbart lacks. Gamaliel (talk
) 00:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Not when merely covering someone's opinion with attribution (per Quotations and
WP:RSOPINION). That said, HuffPo and the partisan blogs you personally added (Daily Kos, Media Matters, etc.) don't enjoy any better reputation for fact checking and accuracy then Breitbart, and arguably have worse ones. VictorD7 (talk
) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe most of those sources should be in the article either, but if we are to lower the bar to include a low-quality source like Breitbart, then they are fair game. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So you disagree with dunk's contention that the inclusion of those other sources is irrelevant to the discussion about Breitbart? BTW, you personally adding them goes further than merely saying they're "fair game". I'll also note that I and others have rejected the premise that a news site like Breitbart is on the same level as group blogs like Kos or Salon, though I don't necessarily oppose covering the opinions of any of those sources. You equating them is a disputed, unilateral act. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182&oldid=1164509478"