Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221

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

Archive 215

←

Archive 219

→

Fringe theory pushed and mainstream view marginalized

The mainstream view on the term "Kurd" is that was originally the designation of Iranian nomadic tribes, and that the Persian name was adapted into Arabic as "kurd-". One user is marginalizing the mainstream view (claiming it is the view of "some others", and moving the mainstream view to the end of the section), and pushing fringe theories most likely taken from ultra-nationalist websites.

His sources for the fringe view is a British empire era scholar from the 1920s ("Driver, G. R. "The Name Kurd and Its Philological Connexions") and a fringe nationalist writer ("Mirawdali, Kemal. KURDISTAN & KURDS. The Kurdish Information Centre. p. 11.").

Are these sources really strong enough to use them in the beginning of the section, or even use them at all in the article?

The same fringe theory is pushed in the article Origin of the Kurds and Kurds by the same user, and the mainstream view is also marginalized in these articles.

As seen on other pages (for example [1]), the user seems to be part of a group of meatpuppets who are pushing anti-christian [2] [3] anti-turkish [4][5][6] [7], anti-muslim[8], , anti-iranian[9] , anti-woman [10][11] and ultra-nationalist [12] edits in all kind of articles.

Might be better raised here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sigh...The anon from "France"(!) is Turkish nationalist sockmaster Lrednuas Senoroc with an another "proxy"-stalking the same Kurdish nationalist editor Ferakp again. I'll add that proxy sock to SPI. 46.221.181.198 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: Those additions, except Driver, were already reverted per

WP:RS about 12 days ago. 46.221.181.198 (talk

) 00:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The Kurdish Information Centre is not going to be a RS for theories on linguistics or toponymy at the best of times. And in this case it is additionally inappropriate because it will have a vested interest in promoting a name-origin claim that essentially says that Kurds have antiquity as an identifiable people. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not care about etymological origin of ethnonym "Kurd". That's is not my point. I have just said that the ip is an another proxy sock of a notorious sockmaster and the additions/sources mentioned by him were deleted 12 days ago, except Driver. Plus, I have seen similar fringe theories regarding "etymology" on other articles. 46.221.160.64 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a place to discuss sources, not sockpuppetry allegations - so your point is off-topic for here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And I will point out you are a single use IP account.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I reverted and warned his Kurdish antagonist Ferakp many times in the past and mapping out a

WP:TBAN request for him: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. In fact, the actions/contribs of banned editor correspond to that term, if you take a look at the previous and current SPI case. 46.221.193.180 (talk

) 11:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This board can only comment on the sources. The Kurdish Information Centre is an advocacy group and in no way reliable for etymology. Driver was a distinguished scholar but his work is completely out of date now, so I would not support including anything based solely on him. Pre-1945 history is often nationalistic, or is spun for nationalistic ends. Concerns about meat-puppetry need to be discussed elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

“The Kurdish Information Centre” source was already reverted 13 days ago per

WP:RS, but for some reason, the IP mentioned it here. That is to say, we are discussing the reliability of an inexistent source now. As for Godfrey Rolles Driver, the source was published on 1923 and seems outdated. Plus, as far as I can see, user Ferakp was warned by @Doug Weller: on his talk page regarding reliability of the same source on 30 January. However, despite the warning, he added the same source on an another article on 31 January 1. 46.221.187.227 (talk

) 13:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Article on "Tiger Forces" relies heavily on bias, non-verifiable source

The wikipedia article on the

Tiger_Forces

, a special forces unit in the Syrian Arab Army relies only on blog articles from

https://www.almasdarnews.com

The article is found here

Tiger_Forces

Long passages such as

After successful operations in Latakia and Hama, Colonel Suheil al-Hassan was tasked a special project by the Syrian Armed Forces Central Command in the fall of 2013—to train and lead a Special Forces unit that would work primarily as an offensive unit. Colonel Hassan handpicked many of the soldiers that would later form the Tiger Forces.

are cited to one blog article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/colonel-suheil-al-hassan-tiger-forces/ that is unverifiable and unsupported.

The author of these articles is Leith Fadel, who has a strong bias in favor of Bahar Al-Assad and the forces supporting him. Al Masdar news is a blog written by Leith Fadel and articles do not provide any type of verification. These articles do not provide verification and cannot be considered either reliable or verifiable. Furthermore, Leith Fadel has a history of making unverifiable claims, some of which have caused harm to other individuals. Evidence of this is found in this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/world/europe/syrian-refugee-tripped-in-hungary-denies-extremist-ties.html

Example

Mr. Fadel, whose Facebook profile photograph shows him with the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, tempered his criticism of Mr. Mohsen on Wednesday, saying, “Whether he is a former fighter or not, I cannot confirm — but I am happy his son is safe.” Still, the pro-government journalist’s Facebook post appears to have helped spread the rumor that Mr. Mohsen was either a supporter or a member of Nusra far and wide.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.3.79 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That NY times article is almost a textbook example of yellow journalism at its worst. It uses just about every sly trick of the trade. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good source. Irrespective of the political slant, our article on Al-Masdar News describes it as a "news aggregator". Can you suggest any other sources? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

limiting more yellow Journalism

OK, maybe it is time we did just ban all newspapers (and indeed any TV news programs/channels) that have a reputation for making stuff up and telling out right lies.

(Soapbox alert)

The standards and integrity of modern journalism has (I think) reached an all time low, much lower then when Wikipedia was first established (and even then it looked upon the press through rose tinted glasses).

As such I think we actually need to either have a blanket change of policy on RS (not new organisations unless it can be shown they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking) or widen the "daily Mail rule to include other (currently) RS. I prefer the latter, and as such.

Blanket warning message on all news outlets

I can see a reason for this given that even some major news outlets (such as CNN and Fox) do seem to just repeat any damn lie. But it may not be practicable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support stronger limits on how we use news sources... but oppose banning news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar. I propose an informal test, The Daily Mail test: "If an article is indistinguishable from one that might appear in The Daily Mail, then it is probably not a reliable source." Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I think limiting the scope of recent news sources would be extremely beneficial to the quality of the articles (i.e. in topics X use sources from Y rather than news sources). Banning would be impractical.
Nergaal (talk
) 23:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

11:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Content derived from news and other media outlets (including state run press agencies and governmental websites) from countries whose media is
judged Not Free should not be considered RS (except under exceptional circumstances which should be discussed on a case by case basis). Content derived from the official press or governmental agencies of a country whose media is judged Partially Free should not be used (except under exceptional circumstances which should be discussed on a case by case basis) unless their claims have also been reported in independent news outlets located outside the Partially Free country in question. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk
) 17:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning message for specific news outlets

The Daily Express

The Daily Express. It tries to copy the Daily Mail but does not have the staff or ability to do it properly (not that the DM is a role model) (this is a shame given it's once great reputation).Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:DAILYEXPRESS? Daniel Case (talk

) 17:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

TheLocal

TheLocal, all editions. thelocal.se is utter tripe bullshit made-up news; Austrian version when I last checked reported hackers hacking a hostel's locks, people trapped inside. Except people weren't trapped inside because the doors could be opened from inside. That's how locks work, ffs. Any references containing thelocal, delete at sight. --Sigmundur (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment Fox News, Russia Today, etc etc. Existing policies cover all of this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Onion

If we are going to compile a list, we need to include the ones that everyone agrees are unreliable such as The Onion.

Let me do a quick check...

I didn't get a warning from an edit filter. It seems wrong to get a warning when using The Daily Mail as a source but not when using The Onion as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it ever used as a source?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is. We cite the Onion a few times in our article about The Onion, where it is used as a primary source for statements about the Onion itself - its content and staff. Note that in this limited context, the Onion is actually not just a reliable source, but the most reliable source possible. This is why we have to be careful about using words like "ban" when talking about sources. Context matters. A source can be completely unreliable for use in most situations, and yet perfectly reliable in specific limited situations. No source is ever 100% unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The Onion is already mentioned at

WP:PUS#Sites that may appear to be reliable sources for Wikipedia, but aren't, noting clearly that it's a satirical news site and that occasionally other media have taken its reports as real. Daniel Case (talk

) 17:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding, wouldn't that make it appropriate for The Onion to be useful as a citation in the context of a news organization taking an article as real? --Super Goku V (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

We would have to search all deleted edits to answer that, because as soon as someone uses it as a source they will most likely be reverted. My point is that, once we have an edit filter in place for The Daily Mail, we should have it apply to sources that everyone agrees are are worse than The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, seems fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"everyone agrees are are worse than The Daily Mail" - everyone? I look forward to many hours of bed-time reading over this agreement! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Banning The Onion seems a bit ridiculous to me and a sign that the discussion is derailing. Since The Onion is satire site it is obviously not a news source and we should start arbitrary things because they aren't news sources. Otherwise we're starting to ban literature and comedians and who knows what else. Also note there are other reason than news to cite a source, which will be affected by the filter as well. A link to The Onion is certainly needed in an article on The Onion itsself. There might be articles on comedy or satire topics and authors were citing The Onion might be appropiate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is perplexing. The comments above were not for a absolute ban of the "Onion". The recent DM discussion did not result in an absolute ban of DM. If there is any "derailing", it is actually getting worked up about an absolute ban, when there is no absolute ban (even in the recent DM discussion), and our policies and guidelines have had various cautions about many, many sources, and these policies and have been strengthened over years of working with many, many sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The Onion is often mistakenly used as a news source. Remember, Nobody is talking about "banning" The Onion, The Daily Mail, or any other source. We are talking about displaying a carefully worded warning, which wiil no doubt explain when using a source is and is not acceptable. The editor can ignore the warning and use the source, anywhere on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

So all the filter is supposed to do is to produce a warning? In that case a message pointing out that the Onion isn't news source is of course appropriate. I must admit I probably got a bit lost in the lengthy discussion. Anyhow if the idea is just to create a warning, I'd suggest the the section ttitles should reflect that. If somebody comes across the discussion a bit a later, browsing, he probably reads "ban" as an actual ban rather than creating warning.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. :) --Guy Macon (talk

) 00:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it was me that made the initial suggestion here[[13] but a more thorough reading might reveal others suggested it before me. DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Forbes.com

Since this seems to be a wish list, I nominate Forbes.com. While never great, the website now seems to be borderline

WP:ELNO#EL3 bad. Sławomir Biały (talk

) 21:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A key thing with Forbes is distinguishing between its paid staff editors and its contributors; pieces by contributes do have some editorial insight but far less than the rigors of the paid staff, and past consensus is that unless it is for its opinion, Forbes contributor pieces should be considered unreliable. I haven't see anything about the rest of the work (paid staff submissions) that would make it more or less the same with most other mainstream sources now-adays. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about your EL3 accusation, but Forbes.com is already listed at

WP:PUS as a potentially unreliable source, since as Masem points out much of the content there is really just blogging. See the sixth bullet in the News Media section. --Krelnik (talk

) 21:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that does a nice job of detailing some questionable sources. Does it go far enough? Perhaps we shall know before long... Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Have we boycotted a mainstream news outlet before?

Before this recent Daily Mail thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Not as far as I can tell - not even Bolivarian Venezuelan "media." Collect (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Collect - I have removed

TeleSUR cites and other such propaganda outlets before, as have other editors, because of their lack of reliability. Neutrality^talk

18:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Individual editors selectively removing specific misinformation cited to certain publications is not a site-wide instituted boycott. Softlavender (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are mainstream? On medicine and science topics they're very much

WP:FRINGE. . . dave souza, talk

16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation and belonged to its earlier incarnations. An article in The Guardian credits IPSO membership for the Daily Mail publishing a retraction. Books about newspapers in the UK typically mention it as a "middle market" newspaper (along with the Express), ranking mid-way between the quality broadsheets and the popular tabloids. See a circulation chart of national newspapers including The Mail.[14] Generally scientists and medical practitioners do not use daily newspapers for their information, and they should not be used for medicine, science or articles about any other academic discipline except in exceptional circumstances. TFD (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Whether of not it is mainstream, it fabricates material. It certainly is one of the largest (is it the largest?) sources we have decided are unreliable for any use (which means it can still be used in situations where blogs, tweets, and other unreliable sources can be used). "Boycott" isn't the right word. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

All mainstream sources publish stories that turn out not to be true. Sunday Times and the Hitler diaries, the New York Times and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, all U.S. cable news and Sanders supporters throwing chairs at the Nevada convention. The Daily Mail is the first and only publication we have decided is unreliable for any use. TFD (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a 120-year-old middle-market newspaper and the second biggest-selling daily newspaper in the UK. Of course it's mainstream. One doesn't have to like, agree with, or even generally trust a publication for it to be mainstream. Fox News is mainstream; that doesn't mean I generally watch or cite it, but I have cited it at least once (interview with a financial leader in Davos). -- Softlavender (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, Softlavender, I saw your comments in the RfC (someone posted the Guardian article on Facebook). I may not have been able to see all the nuances on my tiny screen, though. I agree with you at least in spirit to some extent, but the documented blunders in the DM seem to have won the day for the opposition. I'm not as much a crusader against the DM like John is, but I also remove it when I run into it in BLPs. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- And right after commenting here I go to Recent changes, and run into this edit. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail story says, "Not since Dick Whittington has a cat caused such a stir for a Lord Mayor....Police were called to investigate a complaint of alleged offensive behaviour against his third wife Lin, who has also been branded a 'slut'.[15]

The Evening Standard story says, "NOT since Dick Whittington has a cat caused such a stir for a Lord Mayor....Police were called to investigate a complaint of alleged offensive behaviour against his third wife Lin, who has also been branded a "slut"."

I commented at the RfC, "It would be wasteful to change all the references to the Daily Express, which is almost identical to the DM and find it is banned as well. [07:02, 24 January 2017] The closing administrators replied, "Singling out one source does not deal with the other poor sources that are currently permitted. This point is outside the scope of this RFC." The broadsheets are unlikely to carry this story.

TFD (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not that I am aware, but maybe we should start.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And that edit on the Ian Luder page highlighted by Drmies shows exactly the problem here. The Standard (which is part-owned by the same publisher as the Mail, and was wholly owned by them at the time of the cited report) is no better a paper or source than the Mail. On top of that, both articles seem to be pretty much the same copy (quite possibly a PA file originally, or a shared piece) simply reposted by each site but with a few changes/additions. I'm not sure a lot of people who have weighed in here recently and/or who think this kind of change solves any problems (and there are real problems, I accept that) understand how the media actually works. N-HH talk/edits 19:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

we cannot legislate clue. Yes some people are going to just swap some other low-quality source for the Daily Mail instead of removing the content as it has no sourcing in high quality sources (for good reason). Just part of the larger struggle between folks aiming for a high quality encyclopedia conveying accepted knowledge and folks abusing WP to transmit gossip or grind some axe. In the big encyclopedia context, it is trivia and gossip that Luder got into a dispute with his neighbors about some cat.
WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jytdog (talk
) 19:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. But that's why this approach fails. Sometimes, very occasionally, the Mail will be OK; sometimes other sources are just as bad, in terms of the things they cover and the way they approach them. You could argue this is a first step in dealing with that wider problem but there were other, broader ways of doing that – not least by enforcing existing rules a bit more consistently – and, as noted, kicking this off with a move based on animus towards the Mail alone has already led us, per the below, to people asking for barring other sources that people happen to dislike. N-HH talk/edits 20:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we deal with Ma'an News next? They routinely post false stories, never retract errors and in general has no fact checking as other sources have. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

... and the The Independent [16] (as reported by The Guardian) but they did apologize.[17] I would be able to claim that all UK papers are unreliable but that would be my OR because my cite is to an unreliable source.[18] Thincat (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

notablity. True crime stories get little coverage in UK broadsheets, but are covered in tabloids. TFD (talk

) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

diff of you misrepresenting me yet again. Jytdog (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Important point - we have not "banned" citing the DM... the close simply limits citing it. However, it also acknowledges that there are circumstances and contexts where the DM is reliable and can be cited. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes There was a similar prohibition against the use of the Huffington Post for a while.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, Mark, given that they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I don't suppose you recall when or where that discussion occurred? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

They didn't black list it but when questions about Huffington Post were referred to this board the usual thing was to direct the editor to consensus discussions (a few actually) from this board. If you feel it worth while I can search them out again for this discussion. The consensus changed when Huffington became more than a mere blog and had actual writers and journalists authoring works that they had expertise in or were credentialed journalists.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If you feel like doing a summary with links, that would be valuable perspective for us now and for future historians, Mark. Pete at The Signpost would be interested, I'm sure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping

GamerPro64 would be happy for any additional analysis. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) PS -- Actually, this is probably a better link, for discussion about how to approach the story; Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Coverage_of_the_.22ban.22_of_the_Daily_Mail_as_a_reliable_source -Pete Forsyth (talk

) 23:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Are tabloids mainstream? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The

Village Voice), it is in tabloid newspaper format rather than broadsheet newspaper format, but it is not a tabloid (tabloids would be The Sun, Daily Express, etc.). Softlavender (talk

) 06:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Both the Express and the Mail used to be described as middle-market, but things have changed. It doesn't make sense to call the Express tabloid and the Mail still middle-market. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It does if it is, and it is. If you don't or can't discern the difference between the Daily Mail as a whole, versus the The Sun as a whole and the Daily Expressas a whole, then I don't know what to tell you. In my experience there is an enormous difference between the content of the first and the content of the last two. I have never viewed or found anything even remotely valuable or citable in the last two, but I have often found valuable and neutral citable exclusives in the Daily Mail. I think any discerning and experienced editor can tell what is a valuable and neutral citable exclusive. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I can't remember exactly when, or why, but a few years ago I noticed people assiduously removing references to 3 News (before its recent name change); and that's a more reliable source than the Daily Mail. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bottom line: there was never a blacklist of the Puffington Host, only discussion, whereas the DM has been blacklisted for all intents and purposes. Funny, the Original Fake News was the New York Times' Walter Duranty, who for years wrote Fake News on the New York Times that Socialist Russia under Stalin was not mass-starving his people, and in fact got a Pulitzer for it. Socialist Russia starved 2.5 to 7.5 million people to death. In two years. The NYT later admitted oops, its fake news was pretty "some" of "its worst" reporting. The point is that all media, even the holier-than-thou media, pushes fake news from time to time. XavierItzm (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Huffinton Post

I brought this up and someone asked so I thought I would link to at least one very early discussion about the Huffington Post in regards to whether or not it was considered a reliable source. By 2008 discussion of it was already something that came up often.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC).

Material sourced to Daily Mail in "St Paul's Survives"

In response to the close of the Daily Mail RFC I have been "encouraged to review" our article on

ISBN 978-1907176715.[20] Is this publisher a reliable source and, given the authorship, this book itself? Thincat (talk

) 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I would consider citing the Daily Mail for a quote from an article subject, or someone closely related to the article subject, would fall under exceptional circumstances. I don't think there was any belief in the RFC that the Daily Mail fabricates interviews. No comment on the rest. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd be wary of removing the Max Hastings material. He's a pretty well-known and respected writer who's written multiple books about the Second World War. He is a regular contributor to the Mail, and the paper is unlikely to have fabricated his columns. He's a good source, and the Mail in turn is a good source for what he says. (and this of course shows why this issue is not as black and white as the RfC tried to paint it) N-HH talk/edits 09:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You are free to have the opinion that this issue is not as black and white as the RfC tried to paint it, but the five experienced and uninvolved administrators who are listed in the closing comments do not agree with your opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Well no, they summarised the consensus, which was indeed probably in favour of a blanket, or near-blanket, ban (while also noting that there were indeed cases where it might be appropriate to use of course). Neither administrators nor RfC contributors are infallible – nor do they claim to be. I happily stand by my opinion that most of the latter, including those who declared "kill it with fire", have called this wrong, and even more so that this example shows the issue was indeed not so black and white. I don't see how any rational person could come to any other conclusion, but whatever. Even you don't seem to disagree in fact, in the context of this example. N-HH talk/edits 19:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Actually numerous examples were in the RFC about the Daily Mail directly falsifying quotes from people (to Amanda Knox for an example) and was a significant reason for objecting to it, but thats largely irrelevant here. However this would be a case where Max Hastings reputation supersedes the Daily Mail's. Were Hastings to have written this content *anywhere* even on a blog it would likely be useable given his status and published works on WW2. Also given the subject of the article is a photo taken by the Daily Mail staff photographer, its not unusual to expect them to have information on it (albeit possibly with a slight bias - not that I am saying that exists here, but it wouldnt be unexpected). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, from third parties with no direct relationship to the paper (like lots of papers have been caught doing). I am well aware of that. But as I explicitly pointed out, Hastings is a regular contributor, so the context is entirely different. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I was in the middle of expanding my comment which largely agrees with you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I Strongly disagree with the statement "I don't think there was any belief in the RFC that the Daily Mail fabricates interviews" The Daily Mail fabricated interviews, direct quotes, photos, and entire articles. Any argument that boils down to "I don't think TDM lied this time because..." goes against the result of the RfC. On the other hand...

I Strongly agree with the conclusion that Max Hastings reputation supersedes the Daily Mail's and that we can use something he writes even if he wrote it in The Daily Mail or on a personal blog. I could buy a theory that TDM fabricated a Max Hastings column (they can't be trusted for anything) but I cannot buy a theory that TDM fabricated a Max Hastings column and Max Hastings has stayed silent about it for seven years. So I say retain, based solely upon the reputation of Max Hastings. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this what you intended with your "Kill it. Kill it with fire Under NO circumstances should the Daily Mail be used for anything, ever." !vote or have you changed your mind? Thincat (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not changed my opinion in any way. Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that when someone on the reliable sources noticeboard ask whether a source may be used for a particular purpose I will respond by express my opinion. Wrong. When you asked whether a source may be used for a particular purpose I respond by explaining what the result of the RfC was as defined by the closing statement, countersigned by five uninvolved administrators. I would have given the same answer even if my personal opinion was that using TDM is fine. "I will abide by the result of the RfC and advise other to do the same" and "I agree with the result of the RfC" are completely different concepts. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned Max Hastings among others during the RfC discussion, I regret that the supporters didn't say anything at the time, he was not excluded from the ban. By the way, I don't see all five of the countersigner names in the list of administrators. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, Jo-Jo Eumerus and I are administrators, Tazerdadog and Sunrise are not. Per this 2012 RFC, there is no requirement that RFCs be closed only by admins; non-admin closures carry equal weight. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yunshui, I know that, I added my comment because Guy Macon made a false claim that the five countersigners are uninvolved administrators. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I would interpret the statement less as a deliberate falsehood and more of a misunderstanding (I generally assume RFC closers are admins). Either way, it's not particularly relevant to the discussion itself. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I simply made an error by assuming without checking. I apologize for the error. I will now start saying "five uninvolved editors" instead. The main effect is to make any challenge slightly more likely to succeed, but have not seen anyone actually challeng the close, so it is a moot point. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Part of the conclusion of the RFC was that the Daily Mail was more accurate in the past and that it could be cited as a primary source when the Daily Mail itself is the subject of discussion ("The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion.") An interview from 1940 about an incident involving a Daily Mail reporter clearly falls under both exceptions. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Original poster here. Since this particular topic has now gone quiet and no changes have been made to the article or the corresponding file, I'll say what my take is on this. No one has suggested that any of the references to the Daily Mail should be removed or replaced and some people have suggested that some references should not be removed. It seems in at least one case the person is replying in a way they consider is indicated by the close of the RFC rather than their personal opinion. Thank you everyone very much. If there are further comments I shall still be keeping an eye open here. Thincat (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I can't see any particular reason why this material shouldn't be used. The RFC does, after all, allow for exceptions. The Land (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Public perception OF Daily Mail RfC

I am not entirely sure if this is the correct page to be posting this, however, I urge people to google the words "wikipedia daily mail ban" (without the quotes). The media are clearly interpreting this as a ban, no matter how nuanced the closing remarks and comments at the RfC were. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The media is also calling it "a welcome rebuke to terrible journalism". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Let me find my tiny violin... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

... look no further. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a cartoon (click on the image to enlarge) in the current edition of WP:BLP issues are involved, but the ban looks like singling out the DM when there are plenty of other unsuitable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}
08:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a common argument and was addressed substantially in the RFC. In short the Daily Mail is worse than most (even amongst other 'bad' sources), has been proven to be worse (in terms of lawsuits, IPCC etc) that it justified singling it out.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists for a reason. The existance of other problems does not invalidate or lessen the one in front of us. Only in death does duty end (talk
) 09:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I only heard about the "ban" once it had been imposed, so was unable to vote against what I regard as a deeply irritating bit of left-wing politicking. The closed discussion above states, "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page". Which is "the appropriate discussion page"? Perhaps a link could be provided to enable those who hope to reverse this illiberal decision to make their voices heard. 45ossington (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well to be fair, everyone short of Hitler is left-wing according to the Mail. So thats 99% of the population. (I am allowing a 1% 'probably as bad as Hitler' group) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Skipping over
talk
) 11:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
True, but (1) this is going to be perceived by most of the outside audience as "left-wing politicking" (the proportion of article readers that will take time to familiarize themselves with policies such as
WP:RS will be negligible), and (2) had the DM been left-wing, I suspect the "ban" (not really a ban BTW, since the closure asks for a "warn" edit filter) would not have passed. Of course, (1) is irrelevant to our internal policies, and (2) is idle speculation on a counterfactual - I can think of no significant left-wing press with a history of outright fabrication. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}
11:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
My post was perhaps couched in unnecessarily provocative terms, but it did contain a genuine question: where is "the appropriate discussion page"? (As for inventiveness on the left, what about Pravda?)45ossington (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, this is it. There is an appeal process somewhere but, given how exhaustively this RFC has been discussed, I would not expect any change on procedural grounds. Yes, I agree re Pravda - I suggest you add it to the growing list below. Same applies to RT. Historically, the
talk
) 13:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You are a bit late bringing up Godwin's Rule - the ban proposer compared the DM to the house organ of the Nazi party. That was the intellectual level of the ban-it brigade's arguments. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

What Do You Care What Other People Think? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, "ban" is a 3-letter word. Newspapers love short words, even if they might not capture all the nuance.
The Daily Mail is claiming this was politically motivated. See the last three paragraphs in the latest update of the Guardian piece. [21]
“All those people who believe in freedom of expression should be profoundly concerned at this cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press.”
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that in ten years, there will be a well-known law of the internet which says "As the number of people referring to a website's content as bullshit increases, the odds of that website blaming it on a liberal conspiracy approaches one." In fact, I'm naming it Mjolnir's law right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
True, though I'd swap 'liberal conspiracy' with 'political conspiracy' as I see liberal news that are called bullshit calling 'right wing conspiracy' all the time too. Otherwise I agree totally. Lots of blaming on political conspiracies going on all over the place. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the Daily Mail never suggested our conspiracy was of a liberal variety. It could have been the Green Party. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
And to be fair again, the response also – entirely legitimately – notes the problems that can and have arisen with the reverse situation, of journalists using Wikipedia as a source, given the serious problems with reliability and accuracy on this site. I don't think anyone here should be too smug about any of this. N-HH talk/edits 10:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Smug? We should was glad to hear the DM, said in it's response that it 'banned' its reporters from using Wikipedia a few years ago 'as a single source' (since Wikipedia does not claim to be reliable, by policy), the only wonder is why it took them so long and why its reporters needed to be told, at all (are they fools?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
[Informed, accurate and witty answer redacted due to
WP:BLP concerns.] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.
00:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Appropriate referencing for steel-reinforced straw men made by an ice cream manufacturer

Hello all. I have just noticed some edits to Snugburys that reference this Daily Mail article. On a search I can't find any other sources that make particular reference to the things which are sourced to the DM articles (and nor can User:Mike Peel). Equally, applying normal editorial judgement there appears to be no reason to doubt the Daily Mail's article: it is consistent with a number of other sources, and giant straw scupltures is not known as an area in which the Mail is prone to exaggeration, fabrication, or bias. How should one approach this issue in the light of the Daily Mail RfC? Regards, The Land (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that DM article from a quick glance that's not already on Snugburys' website [22]. Unless there's something controversial about these, there's no reason we couldn't use the official website, though if there are no sources outside the website and DM, it should not be given much weight (part of the conclusion of the DM rfc was not just that DM is unreliable, but that it should not be used to determine notability. I would extend that rationale to weight as well). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: check again - I used the Snugbury's website reference first, but it doesn't cover some of the earlier sculptures, while the Daily Mail article gives the date of the first sculpture they did. I've only used the DM ref for the extra info it contains over the official website. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Forbes Articles

There is an RfC going on at the article concerning
SPA account and another editor who has not edited in a while both voted to delete the source. Now, the Forbes article is written by a Forbes staff writer, Susan Adams, who has received notable accolades for her work there. Your non-partisan commentary at the RfC discussion would be duly appreciated. Happy Valentine's Day (or Singles Awareness Day, whichever you prefer), Eliko007 (talk
) 20:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

They're right, unfortunately. Regardless of their reasons, it looks like that article was published under Forbes Trep Talks, which is a blog and part of their Forbes Contributor System. See
WP:DUE issues. (Basically, Forbes only exerts minimal curation for its blogs, so being published there doesn't carry any particular weight.) I'm also a bit startled that you'd accuse the people trying to remove the interview of being paid editors; given that it looks like a puff-piece interview on a newblog (a very low-quality source even in the best of conditions), I think the insistence on trying to include it is much more strange... and it seems far more likely to me that a self-described entrepreneur like Gorny would hire someone to polish his article with low-quality sources like that, rather than some shadowy cabal being paid to inexplicably remove it (outside of us pedants about Wikipedia policy and sourcing, who would even benefit from that?) --Aquillion (talk
) 21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This post by
WP:CANVASSY to me. Insert CleverPhrase Here
21:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a distinction between forbes staff and contributors - this is an interview by a forbes staff member, regardless of where on the site it is actually published, so should be useable for uncontentious info or for what we would allow a primary source to reference. What is the material this is being used to support? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I went and found out: "Gorny was born in Poland in 1975. When he was 15, he moved to Germany with his family to take care of his grandmother. In Germany he began selling protein and health bars at school.[5] He also worked washing dishes after school at a restaurant and delivering papers.[5] When Gorny was 16, he had saved up enough money to start a business selling PC parts and computers.[5] He was doing $100,000 in revenue and $10,000 in profit a month.[5] Since he was in a rush to get to America, Gorny sold his customer list for $25,000.[5]" So its part background and part puffery, the basic information 'Born in poland, moved to Germany, teenage activities, emigration to the US can all be sourced to a primary source if we wanted to - attributed correctly, so there is no problem with it being sourced to an article by a staff member of forbes (rather than a contributor). The 'He was doing 100,000' bit is more problematic as it is obviously an interesting claim that serves to emphasis his business nous. So I would want a better source for that. But the source itself is not unuseable, it does need work in how its used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Is Google Maps a reliable source for boundaries of a neighborhood?

This Google Map is being used at the article NoMad, Manhattan to support the claim that the neighborhood's northern boundary is 30th Street, while a clearly reliable source from The New York Times cites 29th Street. In this edit, Beyond My Ken (who I hope will comment here), has used both sources and stated that different northern boundaries are cited.
While I think that this edit is balanced and appropriate, the basic question is the underlying reliability of Google Maps as an arbiter of the boundaries, as I have no idea where Google has gotten its information. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Using google maps seems profoundly unwise for this sort of thing. I guess it's published in a sense, but it's ephemeral (specifically in that it can change without notice and with no traceable history of changes), and the means by which information is gathered and reviewed is totally opaque. I don't think it could qualify as a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Some other sources seem to give a wide range of 'roughly defined' boundaries. Here is a source that cites it as 'roughly 24th-30th' as does this one. The Business insider backs up google maps and defines it as 'roughly 25th to 30th'. This source seems to include 25th- 30th street (like google maps) but not the area from madison to lexington in the east (and includes a map). Several of these sources say it is 'roughly defined' so this is a complex problem indeed. I agree that google maps isn't a great source, and some of the others here are not great either, but they illustrate that it isn't as simple as google maps vs NYT. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh and get this. a different article from the New York Times also defines it as 25th-30th. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The necessary background to this is that neighborhoods in New York City have no legal status, and their boundaries are not set by the city, so the only way to determine those boundaries is by common usage, articles in the press, and those given in other sources. This is complicated by the fact that the real-estate industry is always trying to sell their product by associating it with a more hip or notable neighborhood rather then a down-scale one, and even go so far as to invent new neighborhood names, hoping that they'll catch on. Further, NoMad is a relatively new neighborhood that started in exactly that fashion, but which was picked up sufficiently by the press to have a real existence.
In short, unlike long-standing neighborhoods, where one can consult texts such as the WP:OR, but (again) the problem of new neighborhoods requires at least a bit of personal information to help sort out the wheat from the chaff). So, we have the Times and Google Maps disagreeing on the northern and eastern boundaries, and in the absence of a definitive source to decide between them, the article gives both: that the northern boundary is 29th or 30th and the eastern boundary is Lexington or Madison Avenues. This is, as I understand it, the solution that is preferred when two sources disagree: absent a reason to prefer one over the other we give both.
In time, the boundaries of NoMad will firm up as people begin to generally agree on what is and isn't part of "the neighborhood", and when that happens, we'll have multiple sources to support those boundaries. In the meantime, things are in flux, and our article should indicate that. Beyond My Ken (talk
) 03:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict @Beyond My Ken, I found a different source by the NYT, (above) that cites 25th-30th, so if we want to make a quick solution to this issue, lets just replace the google citation with the second NYT citation and call it a day. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, the second NYT article illustrates well the problem that NYC neighborhood boundaries present. The writer says: "By one popular definition, NoMad runs from 25th Street to 30th Street, and from the Avenue of the Americas to Lexington Avenue." Obviously, the writer is implying that there are definitions, maybe even "popular" definitions, other than this one. It'll be interesting to see if the 3rd edition of the Encyclopedia of New York City (if there is one) includes NoMad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Compass.com gives very different boundaries for Nomad... 23rd-31st and 6th-Park ave Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Travel and leisure gives '26th and 30th Streets, Park Avenue and Broadway' as the boundaries. I'm inclined to think that there really is no deffinition, and that people are just making it up as they go along. It seems like every possible definition of an area 'north of madison square park' has been used by somebody. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there may be multiple definitions, and we should reflect that. The question here regarding reliable sourcing appears to be that Google Maps is *not* reliable. Am I correct in that interpretation? Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

True, we seem to have become a little too focused on this particular issue, and have sidelined your original question. I would say that Google maps is generally a reliable source, but where it conflicts with another more conventional reliable source, we should go with the other one (as they are likely an aggregator, much like Wikipedia). Moreover, most of the time the information contained in google maps would be found in other more reliable sources, such as government maps or archived data. I would be very much in opposition to saying that google maps is in general an 'unreliable' source, particularly because sometimes they are cited for material which is original and not found elsewhere (I have seen street view images which randomly found something notable become highly cited primary sources, though I can't remember where). So in short, yes, I would consider it generally reliable. But when other reliable sources exist that conflict with it, I would assume that Google maps made a mistake, and cite the other source instead. That being said, even in this case, it doesn't appear that they have made a mistake, their definition seems to be more or less an average of other popular definitions and identical to another one cited in the NYT, which adds credibility to the accuracy of Google maps.Someguy1221 however, makes a good point that google maps can change without notice and does't track changes, which is an issue, and another reason that in cases of conflict i would trust other sources more highly. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I would generally agree with that, which could be summed up as "Google Maps is a reliable source of last resort." BTW, my personal experience with them is that they are quite careful about changing things. I once needed to change the name of a school in my area, since an older school had closed and a newer one had taken over the building, and they wouldn't take my word for it, I had to provide them with links to articles in the New York Times before they would make the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Might I also suggest that once this conversation is archived from this page that a permanent link to it be created and placed at Talk:NoMad, Manhattan under a section such as 'Boundaries of NoMad discussion on RSN', so that the information contained here remains easily accessible from the talk page. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The real question is of course, 'Who lives on 30th, and why do they not want it in the adjoining Neighbourhood?' - is it a 'lower class/poorer' area that would effect house sales? Does it have a higher crime rate? And so on... These are the reasons estate agents/realtors market houses in specific areas. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
30th St is about the lower boundary of Koreatown (a small district), so certainly anyone trying to rent out retail stores or apartments would prefer to cite the sexier "NoMad" rather than the restrictive-sounding "Koreatown" - but I actually don't think that's as much of a factor here as you think. I believe the primary problem is that a newish neighborhood is still coalescing, a process that could take years or decades or could be an ongoing thing. Look at Chinatown, for instance, which has expanded its scope so much that it ate away much of what was once considered Little Italy. The whole neighborhood thing in NYC is a sort of organic ongoing process, with new "micro-neighborhoods" popping up (I live in one now, one that has sharply defined geographic boundaries on the east and west, a park as a boundary to the north, but no well defined southern boundary), older neighborhoods contracting and expanding, and the newspapers and real estate people trying to surf the changes. (Well, the real estate people actually actively try to control the process to their own advantage.) It leaves Wikipedia in something of a bind as well, since the city very rarely identifies neighborhood boundaries, although some of the various Community Boards will refer to what neighborhoods are in their particular purview, without being specific about how they're defined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

IJR.com / "Independent Journal Review"

http://ijr.com/2017/02/801061-black-lives-matter-leader-calls-white-people-sub-human-we-could-wipe-out-the-white-race-if-we-had-the-power/
I know this is hyper partisan, but is it otherwise reliable?
Benjamin (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable for what? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The views of the speaker, or organization, or event, perhaps? I'm not sure what you're asking. What else would it be for? Benjamin (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Benjamin Read the top of this page. You need to provide the content that the source is being used to support {you haven't}, the source itself (which you have provided), and the article that it is to be used in (you haven't). Without this information it is near impossible to judge the reliability of a source in a vacuum as the reliability depends on context and what its being cited for.

As for the location of publication, while partisan, (like most news sources these days), a quick look at its website does seem to indicate that they have editorial oversight. I wouldn't consider it any worse than Fox news as a publisher from what I've seen here. The author's bio indicates that he has also written for Forbes (though possibly just as a 'contributor'-the Forbes blog section), Discovery News, and a few other low impact places. He seems reasonably reputable, though is clearly labeled as a conservative in the bio (not that it is an issue in and of itself). Nothing strikes me as a huge red flag, but again, we need to know where and how you intend to use this source. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Would it be appropriate, for example, for use in the Black Lives Matter article? Benjamin (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, it is difficult to say without the specific content that it is intended to be used to cite. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In general: probably not. Looking very quickly at that site, its headline formatting looks like pure clickbait. As the article named seems to be claiming that a living person said something offensive, and you yourself admit that the site is 'hyper-partisan', it definitely shouldn't be used for any claim about a living person per
WP:BLP. In any case, I think that anyone who can make this sort of edit [23] should steer well clear of any contentious racial topic. Daveosaurus (talk
) 06:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not out of character for Yusra Khogali to have said that [24], but I fear that adding that to the Black Lives Matter page would be overestimating her significance. Khogali, whom people who hate her like to refer to as a "Black Lives Matter leader" is one of multiple founders of a single chapter of BLM in a single city. In the grand scheme of things, her twitter and facebook rants are not that important. Even her most inflammatory rhetoric seems to garner only marginal media attention, and even then only in the form of partisan sites and some blogs, as far as I can find. So, maybe an unreliable source, probably a BLP violation, and definitely undue weight. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Someguy1221 Three points, first; it seems to be an established fact that she did, in fact, say the things purported in this article (at least some of them are clearly visible as social media screenshots and there is no reason to think they have been fabricated, indeed this sort of thing isn't even out of character), how exactly would it be a BLP violation?

Undue weight for the BLM article I can easily understand, though she is a rather outspoken member of the BLM group, she isn't what I would call a 'founder', you are correct that she founded only one small group.

As for the reliability of source for general use in the Black Lives Matter article, it may by highly partisan, but so is Salon for example (in the opposite direction), which is cited 3 times in the Black Lives Matter article. Partisanship then, clearly doesn't disqualify a source, and indeed we should be careful to maintain an equal balance of partisan sources from both sides if we don't want political articles to become a one-sided joke. The article on
WP:WEIGHT. Insert CleverPhrase Here
08:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The potential BLP violation would be to have the only mention of this woman on Wikipedia being the worst thing she has ever said. That might be an entirely neutral, if the nasty posts are the only notable thing about this person, but for something so inflammatory, I think we'd need more substantial sources. And yeah, partisan sources have a place, opinions can be significant, I just err on non-inclusion regarding living people. Incidentally, I found plenty of non-partisan people, or at least people on the other side of the partisan divide, also complaining about her comments, but nothing that IMHO rose to anything worth reporting on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Does not appear to be generally an RS, and especially not for this particular instance (used here). Note, past discussion on this source in 2014 can be found at the archives. The about page does not indicate much in the way of editorial oversight. The Team page has people with titles of editors, but from what I can tell, they're not editors in the traditional sense. Kyle Becker, the managing editor, has a job duty described as "he helps package content to develop the website's social media presence. He is frequently among the top individual publishers in the world on social media on a daily basis". Others with "editor" in their title have similarly vague job descriptions.

That said, even if I assume the best and that they do have editorial oversight, the author of the article is questionable at best. Michael Miller is basically a blogger. This, with BLP considerations, make me think this article and author are not a reliable source for a very contentious BLP claim. I agree with the WEIGHT arguments above, but that's an issue for the articles talk page I think. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No, not reliable, particularly for this use, as EvergreenFir described above. It's a clickbait blog that, among other problems, spreads conspiracy theories (example 1, example 2, example 3 - the latter being a particularly egregious example). If this is the best that editors can come up with, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Neutrality^talk 19:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump–Russia dossier

I'm poking this noticeboard, since it seems far more active than
Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Forbes / Paul Gregory, if you are so inclined. Sławomir Biały (talk
) 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It is a contributor piece, so basically a blog with little editorial oversight. Generally Forbes contributor pieces are not considered a reliable source (see above sections for a discussion of this actually). Possibly for the opinions of the author. I don't know who this guy is or why his opinion might or might not be notable, so I won't comment on whether his opinion is relevant to the article in question or notable enough to warrant inclusion. Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be better to post it at
WP:NEWSORG, this type of source is usually reliable for the opinions expressed but not for facts. However how various opinions are presented is an issue of weight. TFD (talk
) 19:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried posting at NPOVN, but that noticeboard appears to be abandoned. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, Forbes.com is generally considered reliable, while Forbes.com/sites/ is not. The former has articles written by Forbes staff, while the latter are the blogs that get so much attention on this board. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 23:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail vs Huffington Post

Can somebody explain to me how we got to the point where the
Nergaal (talk
) 23:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well reliability isn't exactly decided by blog or not, but by the average quality of writers' content, their fact checking and proper editorial supervision. Blog is ultimately just a format, that is increasingly used by all news publishers.

As with all so sources (but maybe from now on less so for the Daily Mail) the assessment of reliability depends on the exact context and usage. So is there anything in particular with that HuffPo article you have reliability issue with? And/or is there an alternative "higher quality" source reporting on the same topic?--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my question: we are treating Huffington Post as more reliable than Daily Mail?
Nergaal (talk
) 02:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you list three examples where the Huffington Post outright fabricated a story (see the RfC for multiple examples of the Daily mail doing so). I am not being argumentative; I have never read the Huffington Post and really want to see the evidence. If you can show that, we can start an RfC about treating it the same as the Daily Mail. BTW, I am apolitical, but doesn't the Huffington Post lean what the US calls left while the Daily Mail leans what the US calls right? If so, it will be interesting to see how many editors have a different standard of evidence for the two sites. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The original HuffPo in the US started out as "liberal", but i'm not sure how much that still holds. However the HuffPo publishes also in other countries/languages, where its content and political attitude/perceptions differ significantly. The German version of the HuffPo is considered libertarian with rightwing populist tendencies.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally speaking, biased sources are still usable in certain situations as long as you keep their bias in mind and note it when it could be relevant; see
WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk
) 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two notes: Personally, I prefer not to use HuffPo if other sources that have more age to them exist about the same topic - it's just too new to have the history of something like NYTimes or BBC (But as Guy Macon points out, it also has no black marks on its jouralistic efforts that we readily know about compared to the DM). But the whole issue of DM vs Wikipedia is covered in other major sources like the Telegraph that I would consider better than the HuffPo here. --MASEM (t) 05:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The HuffPo started as a news aggregator with blog postings, but now has its own reporters. The news articles are reliable. I see no reason not to use it and it is more accessible than the New York Times and Washington Post, that require subscriptions. To me, that is an advantage, because readers can click on the links to read more information. TFD (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the Huffington Post is one that is common these days on many news websites. They publish legitimate news stories by professional reporters and they also publish blog style "stories" or opinion pieces of widely varying quality written by people who have little interest in quality journalism. Each article must be evaluated for reliability. I am unaware of professional reporters at the Huffington Post writing completely false stories as is common at the Daily Mail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Also I find the notion of free access over quality/reputation that seem to implicitly expressed here rather troubling. If possible quality/reputation should always take priority, free online access is merely an optional convenience. However I understand allure of providing as much online as possible as a service to readers. To avoid that this leads to the use of weaker sources, I'd suggest to provide 2 sources covering the same content. One being the highest quality/reputation that was available to the editor/author (they can always utilize
WP:REX) and the other being of lower but still acceptable quality/reputation and available online for free.--Kmhkmh (talk
) 04:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Why would you assume that the New York Times is more accurate than the Huffington Post? Lydia Polgreen, the editor of the Huffington Post was previously editorial director for NYT Global, which is the the New York Times "international digital growth team." Do you not think that she would apply the same standards of accuracy in online articles in both publications? TFD (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Didn't HuffPo give a 98.4% chance Clinton would win while other sources gave slightly more conservative estimates?
Nergaal (talk
) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Anecdotal data. AFAIK none has come around making a serious evaluation of the various pollsters (which is a shame, because it seems mathematically easy - take a set of binary events for which each pollster took a guess; everyone scores the logit of the probability they affected to the event; higher-ranked wins). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

They like every other news outlet explained that their projection was based on polls. The polls happened to be wrong. In hindsight, mainstream media should have questioned the polling methodology which identified likely voters based on past voting activity. They assumed that black and progressive voters would turn out in the same numbers as 2012, while assuming that angry right-wing voters who had not voted before would stay home. But I do not see how this affects reliability. we would not say Clinton has a 98% change of winning. We would use something like the article in Nate Silver's site that reported the various estimates of different publications. Because policy says we should not report opinions as facts, we need to present various opinions according to their prominence in reliable sources and we should use secondary sources in preference to primary ones, in this case articles in publications presenting their estimates. TFD (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the HuffPo has had major reductions in staffing. According to "reliable Google" it now has a total of 200 employees. [25] indicates HuffPo used to have far more employees. Fortune: HuffPo has even downsized it video unit which was supposed to save it. HuffPo is not the same as the NYT by a mile. It has a small staff, and no dedicated fact checkers for its articles. And it uses press releases. [26]. Collect (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail but maybe these cases are worth studying:

2011 story "Huffington Post Forced to Issue Retraction, Apology After Falsely Accusing Andrew Breitbart of Doctoring Video"

2014 story: "A discredited old yarn resurfaces about who 'invented' email"

2013: "the news organizations that published the recent pieces — Gawker, BuzzFeed, The Huffington Post and Mashable among them — do not see invented viral tales as being completely at odds with the serious new content they publish alongside them"

Nergaal (talk
) 15:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal's evidence is spot on. Huffington Post puts out fake news, but lefties don't notice because it is part of the Team. Daily Mail may have erred here or there, but because the DM fires on all comers (i.e., the very definition of "independent"), and often hits the left's sacred cows, the lefties hate it. So, DM gets blacklisted, Huffington Post does not. XavierItzm (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the same kind of evidence of deliberately and maliciously fabricated facts and interviews that were the nail in the coffin for the DM, I'll say it again that there was little political discussion in the RfC on the DM, and that the comments were generally very focused on facts that the daily mail deliberately fabricated (and for the record I'm not a leftist). Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I was involved in the discussion that led to the Daily Mail not being considered a reliable source (often incorrectly labeled a "ban" in the media) and I am completely apolitical. This wasn't about politics. It was about repeated fabrication of stories. Post an RfC asking whether Huffington Post should be treated the same as the Daily mail, and if the evidence is anywhere close to being as strong as it was in the DM RfC, I will support the same restrictions. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Every news outlet publishes the occasional retraction. All reliable news outlets publish corrections. Indeed, this is a sign of a reliable source (as defined by
WP:NEWSORG guideline needs to be rethought in light of the fact that many outlets have different departments, with very different editorial standards despite being published under the same general umbrella organization. Now, while HuffPo is a far cry from a categorically reliable source (I don't think any news organization is), it is also not a categorically unreliable source. (That was more or less the outcome of the DM RfC, although I disagree with that conclusion as well.) Sławomir Biały (talk
) 19:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Arguments such as these always hinge upon the assumption that we have a (secret?) list somewhere of "known reliable sources" and all you have to do to support is claim is show that it is sourced to one of those. Well, we don't. Huffpo has it's problems (I happen to be a politically-left guy who finds them utterly distasteful in a number of ways, though this has little to do with their politics), but we've seen time and time again that if a claim is published in Huffpo, it's often also published in other sources whose reliability is less questionable. Plus, we don't take a claim as gospel truth simply because Huffpo made it. We look at the details of the claim, and the details of the source, and weigh and judge them based on what we know about the claim, verifiability and the reliability of Huffpo. If the source is found lacking, we don't use it. This is the same process used for the Daily Mail, and it is this very process and the very clear results of repeating it countless times which caused us to label DM as "generally unreliable" while not labelling Huffpo the same. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Being a reliable source is not the same thing as being infallible. News reports frequently contain errors due to deadlines and on-line news, whether in the Huffington Post or the New York Times website, but they correct their stories. And the error rate for crime and celebrity news is by its nature higher than reporting sports and election results or official announcements. Does anyone remember that early stories about the Quebec City mosque shooting said the attack was carried out by two Muslims? The New York Times carries retractions every day. TFD (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. While the two sometimes overlap in subject, the HuffPo is in general more reliable and contains far fewer spelling and grammar mistakes. In the past, I have easily been able to replace DM sources with HuffPo sources. Also, The HuffPo has the same titles in an article (page and header), whereas the DM often has two, which can cause confusion in citing. The DM is also more photo-heavy.--Auric talk 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to take issue with the "they correct their stories" verbiage. It is not as if the DM does not issue corrections. In fact, The Guardian reported that in 2016 the UK press regulator IPSO forced the DM to issue two corrections (out of 500,000 news pieces reported). Looks like the DM blacklisting is, up to a point, a penalty for being a high-volume conveyer of news. XavierItzm (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The real question is: How many corrections did they make on their own, without being forced to, and how many times were they wrong about something without issuing a correction? With Huffpo, the former is rather large (an indicator that they care about being factually accurate), and the latter only a bit larger. With DM, the former is incredibly small, and the latter enormous. This is a difference of degrees, not a fundamental difference. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 15:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

HuffPo (like Buzzfeed) poses a challenge for us. Both of them have moved into "serious" coverage of current affairs which so far as I can tell basically has as much merit as anyone else's - but still both have a long tail of utter junk . Thinking about UK politics which is the subject where I'm most familiar with most of these sources, some of HuffPo's news coverage is traditional lobby correspondent fare (by our standards, usually RS) - though more of it is "LOOK AT THIS THING SOMEONE SAID ON TWITTER" (beneath our notice). That said, "traditional" media are moving far more towards this mixed model these days as well! The Land (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I really like BuzzFeed; it's becoming one of my favorite news sources. I would suggest that longform pieces there like their headline piece today would be reliable (I have sourced material to BuzzFeed in other articles, like Dov Charney, without complaint).
However, I would agree that their listicle-type material is not something we should use. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, convince me. Start with this story:[27] Find the place in the Huffington Post that the story refers to and post the URL. Is it presented as material from the Huffington Post (you know, the way the Daily Mail has done repeaedly) or is it a "Buzzfeed said" article? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I did a google search for +Thanksgiving +plane site:huffingtonpost.com and got the following result:

No results found for +Thanksgiving +plane site:huffingtonpost.com.

Link to the search results. For those not familiar with the syntax of google, that search should return all pages located at huffingtonpost.com which contain both the words "thanksgiving" and "plane". $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 16:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that the Huffington Post clearly presented it as a "this was tweeted on Twitter" story. It might even be that it wasn't a story but a retweet. Again, I am completely open to giving the Huffington Post the same treatment we are giving the Daily Mail, but I need some real evidence that the Huffington Post not only publishes fabrications, but does so in such a way that you cannot tell whether a particular story is or is not a fabrication. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I did that last bit in a hurry, and I just realized I should try some synonyms for "plane". So I found a hit for "airplane" which opens with:
UPDATE 12/3: Elan Gale revealed on his Twitter account on Monday night that his supposed airplane feud with Diane was, in fact, all a ruse.

Note the link to the story all about how this was fake was in the original, and has been since the day the second story was written. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Viral stories are a big problem in general, not just with the HuffPo. The less newsworthy a story is, and more places it appears, I think the less reliable it is. That goes somewhat against the conventional Wikipedia wisdom however. I do think some caution should be added regarding viral stories. Guidelines already do discuss reprinting wire stories not counting as independent, but I don't think that adequately addresses the problem of stupid viral news. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. We should have a specific policy regarding viral news. That being said, for the specific question of whether a particular source should be treated the way we are now treating the Daily Mail, whether or not the source pretends that the viral news is original reporting is all-important. If they make it clear that they are reposting something from twitter, any reasonable editor would be able to identify it as unreliable.

The basic question "why just the Daily mail? Why not source X?" is a valid question, but those asking the question really need to find a better "source X" than the Huffington Post. Some site where when I ask "where is the evidence?" it is a simple matter to give multiple examples of fabrication made to appear like legitimate reporting. Find me such a site and I will be happy to post an RfC similar to the Daily Mail RfC. If the site has a different political POV than the Daily Mail, all the better. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The situation with viral news can be remedied (among many other issues around fake news and other problems) is reminding editors that
there is no deadline. If there is a viral story going around, we do not have to include it that day, and likely have much better insight after a few days or a week or so has passed to know how that fits into the larger picture. This can help eliminate weight on stories that completely drop out of the picture after a day or so, compared to stories that truly should be included. But getting editors to remember these principles is difficult, since there's a bit of pride to be "first to publish". --MASEM (t
) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that, unlike many viruses in nature, viral stories don't just disappear after they've made the rounds. They have a habit of lingering, showing up in articles (AfD discussions, etc) years down the line. Big viral stories never really die, they just keep circulating (often in other languages, etc). Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment one thing that people here should be aware is that Huffington Post straight up deletes stories once they get negative buzz. They don't publish retractions. So unless you find coverage elsewhere, HP will unlikely provide evidence of "oh, our bad, we did something wrong".
Nergaal (talk
) 09:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not according to Breitbart and Fox News, but we all know those two sites are just chock full of left-wing apologetics. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 13:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Bio website as a source

A new user recently added a citation [28] to Logan Browning from a "news" source called Article Bio. Deeply concerning is the 404-error located at the privacy policy and homepage parts of this site. No "About" section can be found leading me to believe it should not be a reliable source.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Eh, that's a really sketchy source. The content looks good and it's even licensed under creative commons, but incompatibly with Wikipedia (CC-NC). But that's where the good parts end. Their articles are uniformly unsigned, no about us page, website was only founded in 2013, and the parent company, Top Nepal International, is a totally unknown entity [29]. The only possible saving grace would be if this website has a demonstrable reputation for fact checking and accuracy, which seems unlikely given it is not even four years old. I looked, and I found an entire six articles on outlets I've never heard of [30]. That means that some writers are at least aware of the site, or at least found it on a google search, but no one is actually talking about the site itself. When you do a general web search, outside of articlebio itself and its mirrors, I only find people linking to it from social media posts. So in summary, many red flags, and no evidence of reliability. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust it, and generally agree with everything that Someguy1221 has summarized above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks thoroughly content-farm-y to me. Would put it pretty much in the "avoid at all costs" category. The Land (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not RS - There is no evidence of a gatekeeping process so we don't know if it is
WP:SELFPUBLISH or not. Also, a search on Google News finds no instances of the site being referenced by other sources that are unambiguously RS. DarjeelingTea (talk
) 22:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Source

http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/
Is this a reliable source?
Benjamin (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This is what I found -
Gatekeeping: It appears there are at least two people working on it so a gatekeeping process is being used.

Liability: The site publishes no physical address and their WhoIs information is privacy masked. We should question whether the site can be held legally liable for what it publishes.

Tone: Articles reference named sources and do not seem advocacy-oriented.

History: The site has existed for less than two years and has only published less than 30 articles in this time, all on an irregular basis.

Citability: A quick Google News search finds no instances of the site being referenced by sources that are, themselves, unambiguously RS.

- on the basis of which my opinion would be that, no, this is not RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Are the sources it cites reliable? Benjamin (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a mix there. Some from reputable media outlets, some not. But a lot of blogs, just hosted by reputable media outlets. You'll have to look at each one individually, and keep in mind what you are using it to cite. The barrier for a statement of fact is different from that for an attribution of opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

symposium paper as a source

I notice in the
Bankstown Central Shopping Centre article , someone has used this http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/humanity/2007/mbailey3.html to justify the statement the Centre remains an important part of the civic life of this region of Sydney. firstly the source doesn't say it, and this is just a symposium paper. LibStar (talk
) 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Basriat

As the source says, "Basirat news and analysis website is an Iranian
IRGC
political department."
My question is if we can use materials by this source in Middle eastern and political related topics? Specifically, how can this interview be used in those mentioned articles? Thanks --Mhhossein ^talk 13:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all you didn't followed the instruction for posting on this board but in general such sites are reliable for the interview(for the words of course not the facts) whatever its
WP:NPOVN.--Shrike (talk
) 13:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Shrike: Thanks for the reply. By "instruction", do you mean mentioning the "content" and the "Article"? I meant to have a general view on that, knowing that recognized RSs may be unreliable for citing some special contents. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Essentially the question is too broad. Interviews in general (unless there is some indication they are fabricated) are useable when correctly attributed for the interviewee's views/statements etc. Otherwise you would need to provide an article and the content you wish to include in order to give an accurate answer. The 'instructions' at the top state: Source, Article its going to be used on, and the material the source is going to support. The reason they request these three things is because its then a hell of a lot easier to give a satisfactory/accurate answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How has Daily Mail affected accuracy of Wikipedia articles?

This is just a waste of time. From my perspective it appears an RfC has been held, consensus was determined and the discussion was closed. It is not my job to evaluate that discussion or comment on the accuracy of that close, but if you have an issue with that decision you take it to the closing editors there or reopen a full discussion with new evidence and ping all previously involved editors.
Let the horse die. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!}
) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Can anyone provide examples of where using Daily Mail articles has resulted in inaccurate information being presented in Wikipedia articles? TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain that RSN is the right venue for that kind of discussion, this board is for discussing the reliability of sources, not if unreliable sources have ever wormed false information into wikipedia. In any case, what would it prove? If someone answers yes; well, they print inaccurate and in many cases fabricated information, why should it be a surprise that some of it ends up here? If nobody that visits here has specific examples that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, nor that it won't happen in the future. If your
point is that wikipedia editors are pretty good as sifting through mixed bag sources, and that because of this we don't need the restrictions on the daily mail, that is a poor argument indeed, and in any case that ship has sailed, the RfA is closed. Insert CleverPhrase Here
21:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

While cleaning up DM citations recently, I found a cite that used a chart from it to say that the US had the lowest underage drinking rate in the industrialized world. I didn't spend a huge amount of time researching it before removing it (because the source itself didn't actually say that, it was someone's original research from the chart), but from my quick searches it looked like that was untrue, depending on how you quality "underage" - the US is on the low end due to its legal minimum of 21, but many countries are lower, including Iceland, Italy, and Belgium. This is only a partial example (again, the DM itself didn't actually explicitly say what it was being cited for there), but it's the most recent one that comes to mind. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the reliability of that pdf, but I just wanted to point out that the second page is titles "Dartmouth in the 1970s..." and consists of a single photo with a 2000's model car in it. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 22:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably the reason for banning the Daily Mail is that it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, i.e., that there is a chance that its use as a source has led to inaccurate information being added. We need to establish to what extent if any that has happened in order to determine the urgency of the mission to change 12,000 citations. And going forward, it would set a benchmark so that we would have good reason to ban even less reliable sources.

Here is your edit. A chart in the DM article, "A nation of bad parents: Britain's youngsters amongst world's worst for drinking, smoking and teenage pregnancy, warns the OECD," accurately reflects chart b in Figure 2.16 on p. 54 ("b. Percentage of 13- and 15-years-old children who have been drunk at least twice, 2005/06") of the OECD report, "Comparative Child Well-being across the OECD". At the highest, 33.0% of 13 to 15 year olds in the U.K. had been drunk at least twice, compared to 11.9% in the U.S. which was the lowest. The
Daily Telegraph also covered the report in "Britain leads the world in under-age drinking, OECD study shows."

So the DM accurately reported a study by a prestigeous organization, the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
, as did at least one other news organization. The Johns Hopkins report uses a different year (2007) and different age group but provides similar information. In its chart on 15-16 year olds who had drank in the last year, the U.S. ties for last with Iceland. I am rating the DM story "true."

TFD (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Any responses that you get here are going to be inherently anecdotal in nature. The only way to get the information you desire would be to examine all of the Daily mail citations that have ever been attempted and then gauge them on truthfulness, and then thats even if you can verify that what they have written is true rather than a fabricated story that nobody caught. I don't care a wit if this story above is true or not, or any other that may be dredged up, the fact remains that this is not the place for such a discussion, nor is such a discussion likely to bear any fruit due to the anecdotal nature of any examples that might appear. The urgency of the 12,000 citations is up to whoever has the time and inclination to go after them, but they need to be assessed per the closing remarks of the RfC in any case. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be more than anecdotal because it was the basis for banning the Daily Mail. We should be able to identify the damage that using this source has caused in order to determine the urgency of addressing the problem. While each editor will make their own decision on what effort to expend on this, it would be helpful to them in making this decision to know the extent of the problem. TFD (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that we can take an action in order to prevent future damage instead of as a result of previous damage. And before you go claiming that we'd need to prove that the DM can damage the encyclopedia before we take preventative measures, note that most people don't have to shoot themselves in the face with a shotgun in order to be pretty certain that not pointing a shotgun at their face and pulling the trigger is good way to prevent oneself from being shot in the face with a shotgun. We don't need to prove that damage has happened to know with great assurance that damage can happen. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 15:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand your view, which was stated so eloquently by Donald Rumsfeld: "evidence of absence is not evidence of absence." But that's not what editors argued. Anyway, as delightful as it is to discuss why you do not want to answer my question, I posted in the hope that someone would answer it. TFD (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
NO this isn't why people argued against the daily mail, they argued against it because POLICY is against it. Specifically under
WP:VERIFIABILITY the DM disqualified itself due to the willful inaccuracies that it has printed (not accidents). Again, this section is inappropriate, as this board is not the correct location for such a discussion and the RfC on the Daily Mail is closed. Can I please request that an uninvolved editor or admin close this section please. Insert CleverPhrase Here
19:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Right, and the question is how has this unreliability contributed to the inaccuracy of Wikipedia articles. The policy of course is there to ensure that information in Wikipedia is accurate. TFD (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
And you've been given a perfectly reasonable response: Your question is unlikely to be answered, and the answer doesn't matter to anyone but you, anyways. So if you want answers, go find them. Do a search for edit summaries that mention removing DM sources and a search for edits that included references to the DM and start pouring through them. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 19:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently nobody can/will come up with examples, but, to be fair, if your question had said "using anything on dailymail.co.uk" rather than "using Daily Mail articles", there was one example in the RfC: an error caused by a headline about a Brexit vote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that is clearly a misleading headline. I would point out that as Collect mentioned, that headlines are not reliable sources.[31] A headline for Gary Gibbon on Channel 4 News says, ""Commons passes Brexit Trigger Bill". I have come across lots of cases where editors want to use headlines, or book or article titles because they use descriptions they want to put into articles. One of the best known headlines is "Ford to City: Drop Dead." Of course he never said that. TFD (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Call for close

Per
WP:DEADHORSE. --Guy Macon (talk
) 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. It is not normal practice to close discussion threads, while archive automatically after inactivity. If you think that no one wants to discuss the issue, then per WP:DEADHORSE, "If you have "won"‍—‌good for you. Now go about your business; don't keep reminding us that your "opponent" didn't "win"." TFD (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It isn't about winning or losing. It is about continuing to raise the same objections in multiple places after the matter has been definitively settled by an RfC with five closing editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I've discussed above why anything brought up in this section under the OP's original premise is anecdotal and useless for any purpose beyond the purpose that TFD clearly intends;
making some kind of point. Insert CleverPhrase Here
00:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree entirely. While the contortions on display are entertaining, I watch this page for other purposes and find having to wade through the constant whining pretty irritating. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A closer of any discussion must be disinterested and uninvolved. Alas, the closer here has made specific and numerous posts here on this topic. Closing commented out as a result. Collect (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hold on, is this true that an involved ed cannot close a discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:Close states Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins. DrChrissy ^(talk)
18:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Abebe Bikila: Accident

Source: Judah, Tim (2008). Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian. London: Reportage Press. p. 23.
OCLC 310218562. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help
)
Article: Abebe Bikila
Content: In 1969, on the night of March 22, Abebe was driving his Volkswagen Beetle when he lost control and the vehicle overturned with him trapped inside.^[1] According to Judah, it is possible he may have been drinking.^[2]^[3] However, Judah also quotes Abebe's own accounts of that night which contradict this and admits that it is difficult to know for certain what happened that night.^[3]

References

^ Judah (2008), p. 153

ISSN 0261-3077
. Retrieved 2017-01-25.

^ ^a ^b Judah (2008), p. 154

Is this appropriate? Should I include this? Relevant quotes in Judah (2008):

On his way back he was spotted in Debre Berhan, in a bar, at 9:00 pm.

Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe both dismiss the notion that there was anything suspicious about the accident. Maybe the account in Tsige's book is completely accurate, [or] maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know...

Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe (no relation) were friends of his and with him earlier that night. Tsige Abebe is Abebe Bikila's daughter who also wrote a biography on Bikila in 1996 which contains Bikila's account of that night. Tim Judah quotes her extensively in his biography. Judah never states who spotted him in a bar. And in the same paragraph he continues:

...maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know. Nevertheless, rumours spread like wildfire. The gist of them was that an attempt had been made on the life of Bikila by a wronged and jealous husband. There were also stories that the car crash was a cover up and that Bikila had in fact been shot. Needless to say, there is no proof of any of this, but the fact that these stories were widely believed says something about Bikila's reputation.

Sorry if the patronymics make it difficult. I just wanted an opinion on this. Take a look at the guardian article too.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Article published by David Publishing

At Social media, one or more unregistered editors are insisting that this article is a reliable source for the fairly mundane claim that "text was indicated as the most important reason among Internet users." I challenge the reliability of this source and any other source published by David Publishing. The briefest of searches turns up numerous reports and warnings (e.g., this post] from Leiter Reports, this post on an academic's personal blog, this post on another academic's personal blog) from academics, including librarians (e.g., this post from Syracuse, this post on the personal blog of another academic librarian]) who are experts in this area, that this is a predatory publisher. It was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers; here is an archive of that list and here is a specific tweet from Beall about this publisher.
Given the overwhelming evidence that this publisher is predatory and a scammer, nothing it has published can possibly be considered reliable and should be cited in Wikipedia articles. ElKevbo (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"location" in cite news

This isn't exactly about reliability, but y'all know the MOS, perhaps. Please look at at this edit--this is the first time I hear that the location is somehow important in citing an article from a magazine: there are no different Car and Drivers or Auto Expresses for different countries, as far as I know. Pinging Stepho-wrs. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I would agree the location should only be needed if there's a potential conflict of location of the work, like Wired vs Wired UK. If there's only one well-recognized version of a work that doesn't mention it's location, I see no need to include the location= , since particularly as rendered it implies that there may be alternate works. --MASEM (t) 01:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First off, it would have been nicer etiquette if you had raised the issue with me on my talk page before running off to the administrators. You'll find I'm generally polite on my talk page and I try to explore the issue from both sides.

I find the location parameter quite useful to show regional bias. Quite often we get references that either show large national bias or simply show something that is true within a particular region but not true on a global scale.

For an example of the first problem, the Hennessey Venom GT article often gets editors saying car has the record for being the fastest on Earth. Almost always, the reference is from an American source, claiming for the "American" car (note: it is British Lotus Elise modified by an American company). But the American source usually leaves out that the claim is for an unofficial run that was not done by the rules laid down by the Guinness Book of Word Record and hence not eligible for the record. Too much flag waving.

An example of the second problem is for the Toyota FJ Cruiser. American sources said that it would be terminated in mid-2014 calendar year (ie at the end of the US 2014 model year). Many editors took this as being terminated world-wide: end of story. Closer examination should that it remained on sale in RHD form in other countries until mid-2016. The original reference was written in America, by an American corporation (Toyota USA) for American readers. So it naturally gives data that applies to Americans and leaves out data that does not apply to Americans. That's a reasonable thing to do but for someone naively following references it is easy to conclude that the regional reference applies globally because the reference doesn't qualify it.

And lastly, if I go to the extra effort to put the location in, does it really hurt anyone? I don't force others to put it in. If I think it is needed or useful then I take the effort to do it myself. So it is only my own effort that is potentially wasted. Is it so evil that it must be removed no matter what? Stepho talk 07:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, this is not an admin board but a noticeboard where people can seek other opinions and wider input on sourcing issues. As for the substance of the issue, I'd tend to agree that location is not usually necessary, but it will sometimes be useful to know. However, I'd also agree that it doesn't really seem necessary to remove it once it has been added. N-HH talk/edits 10:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what major style guidelines say about it for certain, but my hunch is that location for periodicals is routinely omitted. Consider using ISSN to uniquely identify the publication. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources regarding Tsamiko and Osman Taka dances. Do they meet Wikipedia criteria for reliability ?

Recent edits were made to the
wp:secondary. Advice on the sources would be most appreciated and welcomed by editors. Best.Resnjari (talk
) 21:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Changing a bizarre Wiki rule on sourcing

This discussion was a non-starter by the OP. Many editors have explained the basis of the policy and the obvious point that this page is not intended for a discussion of
WP:CIRC. The discussion is now going in circles (pun intended).--Bbb23 (talk
) 16:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I recently made a substantive change to an article which was reverted. I was annoyed at this because the editor gave no reason for the reversion while I had quoted a Wikipedia article in support of my change, feeling as there could be no more impeccable source that Wikipedia itself while editing on Wikipedia. Therefore, I reverted his reversion. He then provided a reason which I accepted in astonishment, so no conflict. However, this brings up a broader point. He linked to;
WP:NOTSOURCE
. It reads in part:
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time may not be accurate and may indeed be vandalism."
My reaction to this was:

“Whoever wrote this rule should consider advertising as a career. ‘Buy my product. It is entirely unreliable.’ As the unrepentant Scrooge noted: 'I shall retire to Bedlam.'"

For the benefit of those of us who might not be as well versed in Wiki history and rule making, could someone seek to explain and justify this seemingly bizarre rule? First off, I remember hearing of a study stating that Wiki is as accurate as other encyclopedias, including print ones. I have personally noted errors in past editions of print encyclopedias. So why should they be accepted as more legitimate than Wiki? Secondly, if someone were to use another Wiki article as a source for an article and there is an error within the source article, that can be challenged on both articles like any other source. If anything, Wiki has the formidable advantage over print encyclopedias in that errors can be rapidly corrected when noted and agreed upon whereas a print encyclopedia would have to wait until the next edition. It is demeaning to all the people who have put their time and research on a volunteer basis into many superlative Wiki articles to in effect be called unworthy to be used as a source and makes a farce out the entire momentous effort that is Wikipedia! if Wiki editors have such a low opinion of ourselves, then why should we expect anyone else to feel otherwise?
Does anyone here agree with me, and, if so, how do we try to get this ridiculous rule expunged from the Wiki canon? Who has the power to do this and how do we present our case?
Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you and I expect that virtually no one will agree with you. There are two concepts here; "anyone can edit this" and "this is a reliable source". Pick one and only one. You cannot have both. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Suppose someone makes a ridiculous change to an article and you use that article as a source before the ridiculous edit is reverted. No one would know to revert the edit to the second article based on the reverted edit in the first. If you find something that you wish to use in another Wikipedia article, simply use the source in that article instead of the article itself. Objective3000 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

e/c That is likely true, no experienced editor will ever agree with you. To the extent that Wikipedia is reliable, it is only because articles must use
Reliable Sources. See Circular reporting and Chinese whispers to get just one idea of how humorous (or insane) it would be to have a website that used anything thrown up by other editors as a source. The 'sources' would thus include vandalism, use of partisan websites, non-neutral point of view, jokes, etc. First Light (talk
)

I anticipated both of your arguments so I have a ready answer. Firstly, one would hope that an editor using a Wiki article as a source would recognize a silly, vandalism or incompetent insertion (and correct it). Again, give ourselves some credit. Otherwise, Wiki would have been untenable from its inception. Secondly, if an editor was so dense as not to recognize such, then when he or she makes a change or contribution to another article it can be challenged like any other change regardless of the source and would have the side benefit of alerting editors to the source article which also needs to be changed. Using Wikipedia as a source is not circular because it is a collaborative effort and not the work of any one person. If someone else's research is unworthy to use as a source, then it is unworthy to appear in Wikipedia which infers Wikipedia itself is unworthy to exist anywhere!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"...give ourselves some credit" I give our wise editors here a great deal of credit. Look at the collective wisdom on this subject, where experienced editors are unanimously agreeing that Wikipedia does not qualify as a
WP:RS. While it may not be obvious to someone who is not at all familiar with Wikipedia and its policies, it's clear as day to the editors here. Kudos. First Light (talk
) 16:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User-generated content is
user-generated content. QED. Yunshui ^雲 _水
16:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly (if I am understanding your point). Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: "If someone else's research is unworthy to use as a source, then it is unworthy to appear in Wikipedia", that is correct. See
WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk
) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. How can Wikipedia be verifiable if it uses itself as a source? An article can refer to another article. It just can’t use another article as a source for its own content. Further, articles are in flux. Keeping articles reasonably independent of one-another is more manageable than using a chain of verifiability that can be broken at any time. Objective3000 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. How can Wikipedia be verifiable if it uses itself as a source?" Then why is the material in the article in the first place? Was it not verifiable there?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC)See the big notice at the top of this page? This noticeboard is to discuss material used in an article and the sources for it. Given this appears to be the edit in question, the answer is "No the source you have used is not reliable for stating Farenheit 911 is a film in the propagandist tradition." I am willing to bet no experienced wikipedian will say different. If you want to change the rules regarding what is/is not a reliable source regarding user-generated content, (which would be a significant change) you need to head to
WT:IRS. Only in death does duty end (talk
) 16:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I can understand your private curiosity as to what change I had made, I don’t see where it is relevant here. You seem to indicate that I am pleading my case in the wrong venue. I hope you would acknowledge that the title of this Wiki forum might lead one to conclude otherwise. Nevertheless, thank you and I shall go to the correct venue that you kindly pointed out at a later time when I have more if it.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Its not private curiosity, its what this noticeboard is for, as the notice at the top clearly states. It is not to discuss the policy/guidelines itself - that is for the talkpages of the relevant policy/guidelines page. This noticeboard is specifically to help with identifying if a source is reliable for material that has been/is due to be placed within an article. Which is why it makes clear that you need to provide a)the source, b)the article, c)the material the source is being used to support. Seriously though, you have been editing since 2009 and you are only getting this *now*? I can understand a new user being unaware Wikipedia does not cite itself, but I cannot fathom how someone can have been editing for 8 years and not understand a basic premise such as what is and is not a reliable source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You've already made your point about the correct venue for my OP and for which I thanked you. Regarding my heretofore ignorance of this rule, perhaps because I have used Wiki articles as a source previously (including twice recently) with no protest by anyone.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What a perfect example of how using Wikipedia as a source for itself can be abused. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And what a perfect example of the politicization of what should be a nonpartisan forum. I’d wager you’d agree with me if I had made such a change regarding a climate change denial “documentary.” Try to be a little less transparent, will you?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk
) 16:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You have seriously no idea of how much
WP:CIRC is baserock policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me}
16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
However, is Wikipedia a reliable source on its own policies and guidelines? Lyrda (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lyrda: Not sure what you're getting at but we're discussing article content. For articles, "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm uncertain, by I think she is being sardonic. If so, bravo!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Only in the same way any other primary source would be on itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Many have stated the key problems above, but I will point out that if you see content on a different WP article, you are free to grab any inline citations from that to use on your article that support the points you want to make. This is avoiding making WP the "middleman" in verifyability. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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

@NeilN and others BTW, here is an example of circular reasoning (Regarding evolution) The principle that drives evolution is survival of the fittest. Therefore, why is a presently surviving species the fittest? Because it survived. And why did it survive? Because it is the fittest. How is this topic analogous to this? Wiki article A is being used as a source for Wiki article B but not visa versa.HistoryBuff14 (talk)
The best place to discuss this would be Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Felsic2 (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Casualty Statistics: Participation in hostilities irrelevant?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Noticing how the B'Tselem's website differentiates between casualties among Israeli security forces and Israeli civilians, but doesn't offers a parallel classification of Palestinian casualties, I was inclined to look closer at their statistical data. I examined the downloadable .csv file listing 3,031 deaths since January 2009 in the West Bank and Gaza, and did find a relevant rubric titled Took part in the hostilities. However, since October 2014, 217 of 250 casualties' participation in hostilities has been deemed Irrelevant (23 listed as No, 10 as Yes). Here are a few questionable examples from last year's casualties, accompanied by the description offered by B'Tselem in the same file:

Hammad Dakhil Khader a-Sheikh, 21, "critically injured by police fire... after stabbing a police officer with a screwdriver." Irrelevant.

Muhammad 'Abd al-Khaleq Rida Turkman, 25, "shot dead by soldiers at the DCO Checkpoint after he fired at soldiers there. According to media reports, three soldiers were wounded by his gunfire" Irrelevant.

Khaled Ahmad 'Alian Ekhlil, 25, "shot dead by Border Police near Beit Ummar after hitting three Border Police officers with his car." Irrelevant.

Mesbah Sbieh Mesbah Abu Sbeih, 39, "Shot dead by Border Police in East Jerusalem's a-Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood after he shot and killed an Israeli woman and an Israeli police officer." Irrelevant.

Hatem 'Abd al-Hafiz 'Abd a-Rahim a-Shaloudi, 25, "Shot to death by soldiers near Tel Rumeidah. Video footage shows him producing a knife and lunging at soldiers during a security check" Irrelevant.

al-Majd 'Abdallah 'Abdallah al-Khadur, 18, "Shot and killed by soldiers after deliberately ramming her car into another car that was at a hitchhiking station at the entrance to Kiryat Arba." Irrelevant.

I call into question the reliability of their statistics on non-combatant casualties.--ארינמל (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a specific problem with a Wikipedia article? If so, please point to it.

Israeli military wear uniforms so it is fairly easy to identify who is a civilian and who is not, which is harder on the other side. From your first link, I see five categories for Palestinians dead in Gaza, two of which related to special operations ("targeted killings"). In the other three, the stats are 1591 "did not take part in hostilities", 1042 "took part in hostilities" and 70 "not known if involved in fighting".

I did not look deeply in the site but depending on how "took part in hostilities" is understood, it may exclude terror attacks such as the one you mentioned above. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks like it might violate
WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition. New editors are allowed use the Talk: namespace but [t]his exception does not apply to [...] noticeboard discussions, and posting the same nonsense comment in multiple fora including a talk page and a noticeboard seems like it would fall afoul. Hijiri 88 (聖やや
) 10:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Sorry. I was mostly annoyed at the poor formatting (posting this at the top of the page) and forgot to clarify that I was responding to your first paragraph. The new account posted almost the same remark on the talk page of the article he/she is apparently talking about, roughly two hours before posting here.[41] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, closing the discussion. El_C 10:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation included for BLUE material that may also include COPYVIOs?

Article: Li He Diff: [42]
I wasn't sure if this should go here, ELN or CP, and basically decided on RSN because I'm more familiar with this venue. Basically, individual romanizations for each character in the text are
WP:BLUE
so I could include them inline without a source, but I didn't want to look them up individually and copy-pasted them from some random blog (I checked several of them in a reliable source and the random blog, Poetry Nook, seems to be accurate), and I inserted a citation of said blog. It's my understanding that for BLUE material, no citation and a citation of a generally unreliable source are equally acceptable (or in other words, the generally unreliable source is adequate for extremely uncontentious information), but...
I worry that several other pages on Poetry Nook (not the one linked) might violate copyrights and so would fall under
WP:ELNEVER
. Specifically, I found unattributed translations of works of the same poet. I have no reliable way of knowing one way or the other whether the translations were stolen from someone, the unnamed contributors who uploaded them were the original translators/copyrightholders, or Poetry Nook's short quotations would fall under fair use and so us linking them would not be us linking a COPYVIO page.
Should I:

remove the citation as redundant and not worth worrying over, or

leave the citation since the specific page linked does not violate copyright?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And then I dug a bit deeper (I've been looking for some translation of the poems in question to quote in the article, though I don't know if that would be fair use) and found that "Pink Floyd" ref quotes the same modern English translation, apparently (though somewhat ambiguously) attributing it to "Graham", whom our article does currently cite for some other information. That said, there is information in the article (it was there before I got there) that is cited to the "Pink Floyd" source and is unlikely to be found in any other source, so if we throw out the probably-unreliable and maybe kinda-sorta COPYVIO source we probably need to throw out the information attributed to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

paleofuture.gizmodo.com in Napoleon Hill

Napoleon Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Novak, Matt, "The Untold Story of Napoleon Hill, the Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time", Gizmodo, retrieved December 10, 2016

Dispute over any use of this Novak source at all in Napoleon Hill.

Information about his second wife and first child is sourced by Novak and the newspaper that Novak cites:
The journalist Matt Novak writes that Hill married his second wife Edith Whitman in 1903, and that Hill's first child, Edith Whitman Hill, was born in 1905. Whitman's existence is not mentioned in Hill's official biography, but is corroborated by contemporary news accounts.^[1] Hill and Whitman divorced in 1908.[43]

This removal of all use of the Novak source consists of:

Changing the lede from

Hill made largely unverifiable claims to have personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist
Franklin Delano Roosevelt; however, according to at least one modern source, there exists little evidence that Hill had actually ever encountered any of these celebrities, with the exception of Thomas Edison
.

to

Hill said he personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
.

Removing the "Failed Busines Ventures" section heading, and information related to the Acree-Hill Lumber Company, partially supported by a newspaper that Novak cites. [44]:
After becoming estranged from Whitman, Hill moved to Mobile, Alabama in 1907 and co-founded the Acree-Hill Lumber Company. Novak accuses Hill of running this company as a fraudulent scheme; between 1907 and 1908, Hill took between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of lumber on credit, and then sold off the lumber at low prices without intending to repay his creditors. By September 1908, the Pensacola Journal reported that Hill was on the run, as he faced criminal proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings, charges of mail fraud, and warrants for his arrest.^[2]^[3]

By December 1908, Hill had fled to Washington, D.C., seeking to reinvent himself. At this point, Hill started introducing himself by his middle name, Napoleon.

Removing claims of Hill advising Woodrow Wilson [45]:
Later in his life, Hill would claim that he spent the years of 1917-1918 advising president Woodrow Wilson amidst World War I. However, the journalist Matt Novak denies that Hill ever met Wilson, noting that Hill's publishings at the time omit any reference to such an occurrence.^[2]

Removing mention of divorce to third wife and marriage to fourth [46]:
In 1935, Hill's wife Florence filed for a divorce in Florida. In 1936, the 53-year-old Hill entered his fourth marriage with the 29-year-old Rosa Lee Beeland, less than 2 days after the two met at a lecture in Knoxville, Tennessee.^[2]

Removing claim of Hill being "nearly broke" in 1939 [47]:
By early 1939, Novak claims that the "Hills were yet again nearly broke."^[2]

The majority of all talk page discussion is over the use of this source. So, is it reliable for any of this content, alone or when supported by the newspapers cited? --
talk
) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(I've modified my initial request above to include more quotes in response to feedback [48]. Sorry for not noting it at the time. --
talk
) 16:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

@
Ronz: Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources. SW3 5DL (talk
) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The question is whether or not the blog article by Matt Novak that is being heavily cited is reliable per WP policy. Also, there are instances of violations of WP:OR that I removed but seem to have been restored. Having Novak make a claim that Hill married someone else without showing a source to that claim, and then an editor finding a source and appending it is OR since they are interpreting what the newspaper says. The person named in the newspaper article is Mr. Oliver N. Hill. There's no source being used that uses the newspaper as a source and identifies it's Napoleon Hill. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the bit on marriage, it's not original research: I cited the newspaper (Tazewell Republican, June 1903) because it was specifically cited in Novak's article. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
But where is the source that identifies that this newspaper mention of Mr. Oliver N. Hill is the Napoleon Hill in the Wikipedia article? You can't be the source because then it's WP:OR, which is why I deleted it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but Novak's article is the source identifying the newspaper mention as Napoleon Hill. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and he fails to mention how he sorted that Mr. Oliver N. Hill mentioned in the newspaper is also Napoleon Hill. He seems to have come across this and assumed it is the same person, yet there doesn't seem to be a mention of this marriage in other sources on Hill. Sources that rely on their own original research are not reliable sources.SW3 5DL (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The material on Mr. Hill appears to be of an editorial nature ("Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time" appears to be specifically an article about "scammer" rather than a simple biography of a specific person - who was not apparently convicted of anything, as far as I can tell). , rather than a scholarly article about the person, and the "naughty bits" appear not to be supported by other sources about the person. The author is not an expert in the field, and thus I have sincere doubts about it being a "reliable source" for contentious claims. As a result, the desire is to obtain better sources for such material. Collect (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on that. Even the blog's illustration suggests this is not a serious piece of scholarship. I'd also note that
widely notable as a con artist, or for his marriages, or his failed businesses. He is widely notable for his book, Think and Grow Rich, which apparently is a bestseller and is widely notable as the foundation for all subsequent self-help books of this type including The Power of Positive Thinking and The Secret. If the claims about his marriages, and supposed life as a con artist are to be included, they need reliable sources, and this blog does not seem to be it. SW3 5DL (talk
) 00:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

While we are here, the biography also includes cites for the
National Cyclopaedia of American Biography which appears to use biographical information without citations and, in its Wikipedia article, is noted as "The entries in the National Cyclopaedia are unsigned and are largely based upon questionnaires and other information supplied by families of the biographees." A Google News Archive search which is a 404. Also several sources are used repeatedly as though they were separate sources. Biographies which include "The organization was headed by the check forger and former convict Butler Storke, who was sent back to prison in 1923." appear problematic on their face - sourced to [49] used for ten "separate cites." In short, alas, a bit of a mess for a Wikipedia article. I had sought to clean it up a bit, but was insta-reverted. Collect (talk
) 14:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Note also that "Oliver N. Hill" is not a unique name. [50] shows one born in MI living in NM in 1940. Unless a newspaper gives stronger linkage to a specific person, the claim is not usable. Collect (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also the due weight. Especially in the lede. Hill is not at all known for any association with the so-called "New Thought movement" it is in the lede saying he was. That is based on a passing reference in a book found on Google books. That is not sufficient. Any attempt to remove it gets reverted immediately. I agree with Collect regarding the name of HIll. That is very common, and RS does mention that Hill went by Napoleon starting from a very young age. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll just briefly reiterate my points from the talk page, and say that I think the concerns over the Paleofuture "blog" are a bit overblown. Paleofuture may call itself a "blog" on Gizmodo, but it's not self-published livejournal or anything. From a structural point of view, it's just a normal part of Gizmodo, a news website. Per http://gizmodo.com/about Gizmodo has an editor-in-chief, several editors, etc., as one would expect from a news organization. And Matt Novak isn't just some random guy-- he's a reasonably well-known journalist, and a "senior writer" on Gizmodo who is presumably subject to editorial oversight. And frankly, when it comes down to it, I trust Novak's work more than that of Hill's promoters, who seem to be the writers of most other secondary sources on the man. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That's all your opinion. And you seem to consistently insert into the article sentences that start with, "Matt Novak says. . ." as if this fellow is a Napoleon Hill expert, which he is not. It's a blog and can you call it what you want, but Gizmodo is part of the Gawker Media Group and has the same tone and tenor of Gawker. It's not a credible news organization, and Matt Novak's blog is not a credible source for the article. As for your dismissal of reliable sources, you're the one who is calling them "Hill's promoters," which is incredibly POV. Published biographies of Hill from reputable publishing houses are reliable sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Gizmodo appears reliable, is widely used across Wikipedia, and there don't appear to be any discussions to the contrary.

Whether this subsection of Gizmodo is under different oversight or not is a good question to settle, but we need evidence. Otherwise the assumption that it falls under Gizmodo's oversight is a sensible assumption. --
talk
) 00:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I echo Ronz's comments. My impression is that SW3 5DL's disapproval of Gizmodo isn't exactly the consensus on Wikipedia. Although I'd be interested to hear some thoughts from other folks who haven't had prior involvement with Napoleon Hill's article. OmgItsTheSmartGuy (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The content of Matt Novak's blog post is the issue here. The question is whether or not it is reliable. You say Gizmodo is used widely on Wikipedia, but in what context? What content from Gizmodo is being used? This blog is being used to source a biography, and whether or not Gizmodo has been used as a source on Wikipedia in general, it is this particular blog post that is in question here. With its sophomoric sarcasm, it does not represent a reliable telling of the life of Napoleon Hill. Matt Novak has no expertise on the subject. He's not a biographer or a historian, and that would be okay if what he wrote was a serious piece of journalism, but it is not. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In reply to User:OmgItsTheSmartGuy, I have had no involvement in the article prior to this post so while I'm no longer technically uninvolved I may be able to help.

I think User:SW3 5DL has already made some very valid points in reply. I'd like to expand on them.

While this web article does satisfy
WP:RS, it's not an adequate source for all of its contents. Most of what it says is sensational, and it's heavily POV. So we wouldn't for example say Hill was a huckster just because Novak does, or even use the word huckster just because he does, and cite Novak as the only reference, this would not be encyclopedic. We couldn't say some authorities say Hill was a huckster, that's weasel-words, and Novak is not an authority anyway. Even Novak says Hill was a huckster isn't encyclopedic. Perhaps writing in Gizmodo
, Novak claims Hill was a huckster with the appropriate reference might be NPOV and adequately sourced, but does anyone really care what Novak says there? It's still not encyclopedic. We can and should cite Novak for things that are verifiable elsewhere, such as the date Hill was born or married or left a particular place, but that's about all IMO (and if we find, as I suspect we will, that his research in even such matters is unreliable, then all these citations should be removed not just the ones we explicitly falsify... but that's a matter for the future, and I may be wrong). And the reasons Hill left that particular place would need better sources; We should not even repeat Novak's speculations. If he sources such statements we could in theory cite his source, but we'd need to add an original not sighted to the citation until and unless we can independently verify his source, and I doubt we want to do that either.

In summary Novak is technically citeable, but in a very restricted fashion. Andrewa (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming in to note that a few months before the time of this article's writing, Gawker Media's assets had been sold to
MrOllie (talk
) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@
WP:RS is specific the biographies of living or dead persons must be well sourced. This is clearly not an acceptable source, especially when other reliable sources exist. I also agree that it is poor practice to insert Matt Novak's name into edits. One other thing to note is that the reliable sources on Hill have been labeled 'Hill promoters" by OmgitsTheSmartGuy. SW3 5DL (talk
) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on info in initial RSN request and related edits

(The comments below were started [51] in response to SW3 5DL's [52], Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources. --
talk
) 21:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

The assumption that such information is needed here suggests a
non-collaborative perspective
.

The diffs you asked for have always been there. I've added quotes so that editors don't need to bother with any of the diffs. --
talk
) 23:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@
Ronz: please don't move my edits. This particular edit was made on February 18th and I've restored it. Also please do not rewrite your edits after editors have responded to you. SW3 5DL (talk
) 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree 100%. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Some of my posts now look most enigmatic if you go by the sig timestamps. This is disruptive and in the extreme can lead to blocks and bans. We should not need to go to the page history to sort out a discussion string. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand either of your concerns, but placing a comment inside another's tends to be problematic. Placing it inside an initial request at a noticeboard, moreso. Moving a comment to the beginning of a discussion on a noticeboard without any indication that there were responses to it seems rather disruptive.

As far as how editing an initial noticeboard request in response to feedback could somehow be disruptive, you'll have to explain. In the meantime, let's not derail the purpose of this discussion. --
talk
) 16:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I know you don't understand my concerns, but do you now understand the guidelines and that you have violated them, and will you please abide by them in the future? Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@
Ronz: You need to stop this disruption of the discussion thread. As Andrewa notes, you can be blocked for this behavior. And refactoring my comment by adding talk quote and moving it again, is deliberate disruption. SW3 5DL (talk
) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

He didn't move it, he made a copy of it, in a talkquote, in his own comment so it was clear what he was responding to. Your original comment remained where it was. I'll also note that in your own refactoring, you just broke one of Andrewa's comments. -
MrOllie (talk
) 20:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Made a new attempt at restoring the context of my comment, and fixed the broken comment. --
talk
) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Take my comment out of talk quote. I did not make my comments in green and I do not want them taken out and quoted by you in green. You can show a diff but you cannot quote me like that. Please revert that mess. I SW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Refocus

I would suggest we just hat the mess above, right back to the first disputed contribution (whatever that is), and start again. I'm happy to do it if someone will identify the earliest problem for me. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't suggest that. Ronz simply needs to revert his disruption. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the problem for me. The sig timestamps and page history don't match and we can't fix that. A little of such tangles is survivable and not unusual. The above is now too tangled to be worth untangling IMO.

However, if you would give the diffs of the specific edits you want
undone
, and if you and Ronz agree that this will settle the matter, I'll just have to go along with it.

A third alternative is to ask for another admin to close this discussion, and I'm seriously considering it. And we move on. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I originally hatted it and think it should be done again.

First comment about the diffs (after the same discussion ended at Talk:Napoleon_Hill#Adding_and_then_reverting_own_edits) (I'm going to refer to this as "first comment")

[53] My attempt to respond to the concerns in the first comment by providing quotes, moving the first comment, and responding.

[54] The first comment is removed and a note about it is made.

[55] The first comment is moved to a new location.

[56] I quote the first comment to provide context for the commenting, respond, and place hats around the discussion.

[57] The quote of the first comment is removed, as well as half of my response to it.

[58] A response is split in two and part is moved.

[59] I restored the deleted half of my response.

[60] I introduced the context of my comment

[61] I restore the comment that was split in two

I believe I've cleaned it all up. --
talk
) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
But User:SW3 5DL, you disagree?
Delinked at the user's request. Andrewa (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not prepared to hat it unless you both agree to it, and suggest you should not do it at all, see Template:Hidden archive top#Usage This template should only be used by uninvolved editors....

But I can't see any chance of a productive discussion here as it stands. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

^ Tazewell Republican. (Tazewell, Va.), 18 June 1903. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. <http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn95079154/1903-06-18/ed-1/seq-1/>

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference Novak was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

^ The Pensacola Journal. (Pensacola, Fla.), 17 Oct. 1908. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. <http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87062268/1908-10-17/ed-1/seq-3/>

journeymart.com

I noticed a new user adding lots of external links to journeymart.com. I thought at first this might just be spamming, but I see that the site is actually used as a reference in dozens of articles, suggesting that other editors have found it to be a useful source of information. It's a travel portal with some commercial offerings, but I can't really tell if the content at the site is reliable or not, so I'm asking for others' opinions. Deli nk (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

journeymart.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.journeymart.com

Your first reaction seems to be correct.Nothing about that site even whispers "reliable source." It's a commercial travel site, which includes a handful of articles submitted by anyone ("Share your experiences and expertise with us and we'll publish your articles/features on our site and circulate it to thousands of people interested in TRAVEL!"). There appears to be no editorial oversight or fact checking. I suspect link spamming with some of those other references, without looking at them. First Light (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I have started going through the pages that contain links to journeymart.com and removing them as appropriate. Some are similar enough that I am sure they are deliberate linkspam, others look like well-intention editors using an unreliable source and thus inadvertantly introducing linkspam. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Mondoweiss

I've seen a few entries here where Mondoweiss is concerned but nothing really definitive. It is my assertion that it can't be used as a RS especially for items within the Middle East conflict. It is not a neutral, reliable source. It has an agenda and it is pretty open about that agenda. The same way users throw out right wing entries merely for being right wing, or pro-Israeli, such as Arutz Sheva, Mondoweiss should not be allowed as a RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the big notice at the top of this page? What is the article that it is being used on and what is the material it is supporting? Also go read
WP:BIASED. Only in death does duty end (talk
) 21:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

In general a source like this would not be considered a reliable source except for as a source for the views of the authors (this depends on the context however as OiD pointed out). Also, other journalists don't seem to have a particularly favorable view of them see this article on the Washington Post denouncing them as a hate site, and also describing it as a 'blog'. The Atlantic seems to have a similar view. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah the irony in the Post calling someone else a blog... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Google News Search seems less useful for finding reliable sources.

Over at
Algemeiner (Jewish), Breitbart News (alt-right), and Mondoweiss ("progressive and anti-Zionist"). There's nothing on the first page of search results which can be considered a neutral reliable source. This is discouraging. John Nagle (talk
) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

GNews search has been crap for a while, partisan and bloggy sources are often returned as top results while higher quality sources (like major newspapers) often don't show up at all. No idea what changed or what causes this but it's nowhere near as useful as it once was. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I regularly use the following to exclude common fake news sites when I'm searching for political news stories:
-site:breitbart.com -site:abcnews.com.co -site:nationalreport.net -site:infowars.com -site:wnd.com -site:naturalnews.com

It wouldn't take much work to compile a similar line from all the sites in List of fake news websites. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Using multiple site: qualifiers in a search always fails for me, yet using multiple negative qualifiers as in your example seems to be OK. Do you know if there's a way to get something like site:bbc.com site:nytimes.com site:npr.org to work so that we can search multiple reliable sources at one shot? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Institute for Legal Reform claims to support statement that particular lawyers "regularly manipulate litigation" etc.

One user would like to use a press release and report cited to the
wikivoice
) and believe that we should rely on other sources (e.g., journalism, scholarly writings, think tanks) instead.
Comments are much-appreciated. Please consolidate discussion by weighing in at Talk:Newport News asbestos litigation. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

In general, I'm not sure this is a RSN issue as much as POV and the proper use of primary sources. Material sourced only to primary sources almost never should be put in Wikipedia's voice, and often deserves no mention at all per NOT and POV. --
talk
) 23:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinions, sourced and cited as such, are generally allowed as long as the opinion-holder is notable on the topic. Collect (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail (again- sorry!)

Apologies if this has been established and I missed the discussion (I'm afraid I stopped following after the RfC result)- but how do we treat repeated insertions of it as a ref? Not withsatnding our usual tools against disruptive editing, of course. I assumed that there would be an edit filter, but maybe that hasn't been kicked in yet? Just wondered if a new policy / guideline had been established. A situation has arisen on
^{...Imperatrix mundi.}
13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeat the following with the voice of Mycroft Holmes: A situation has arisen on Loch Ness Monster. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

We're attempting to be a serious encyclopedia and are therefore not interested in what the Mail has to say about the Loch Ness Monster. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, we are at least a little bit interested in how the myth was developed by the Mail in the 1930s, as there are independent sources for that, and it adds to the stock of knowledge about the development of folklore. We are not interested in the Mail's antics in the 2000s. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this discussion; I'll remove said reference, as t is not about the DM itself, but them quoting someone else.
^{...Imperatrix mundi.}
17:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we have clearer guidance on what sort of sourcing from the Mail is and isn't OK?

I realize all that will really be happening is that an edit filter will be in place letting editors know that the Mail is extremely problematic as a source. But ... the practical effect will be as the media worldwide has been reading it: no use of the Daily Mail whatsoever. So there will be editors who apply this overbroadly, much as
the caveats on linking to YouTube
have been understood by too many editors, even established ones, as a blanket prohibition (I have made that link more times than I can remember to explain a reverted edit).
To be perfectly clear I have no objection to this decision. We need not explain it in our own words; all that is necessary is this quote from the Gawker exposé cited multiply in the discussion that led to it:

In August 2013, a few months after I started work, the Mail was sued by a woman whom the Mail had identified as a porn star with HIV. The only problem with that was that the woman was not a porn star and did not have HIV.

You can't serve that one any drier. One is reminded of the Soviet-era Armenian Radio joke with the long punchline that ends "But in theory, you are correct" (or begins with "in principle, yes", as Armeniapedia has it).
I was aware, even from the other side of the ocean, of the Mail's issues, and from discourse here in the past I had frankly thought this decision had already been taken in some form (I just could never find where, although I thought this 2011 discussion was enough. And that the Mail's sports coverage was excluded from such disfavor for some reason (not that it affects any editing I do, to be honest). I have not hesitated from enforcing this myself in the past.
However, some articles I've developed do have some reliance on sources from the Mail, and in one case I would ask that the source be kept.
I started, years ago before the movie even came out, and have done most of the work on the article about
verifiably
had the experience she described and b) is undeniably relevant to an aspect of the article subject.
Can things like these be considered before we unleash some of our more obsessive editors on the 12,000+ reported citations of the Mail in our articles? I would argue that we need to view the Mail decision as not a prohibition but a stricture, with content from that source evaluated on a spectrum of credibility.
At one end would be things like, in declining order of skepticism-worthiness:

Controversial allegations about
an otherwise non-notable living person
that paraphrase the alleged source rather than quote them directly, and/or neither identify the source or sources or even give some good context as to how the source might know what they're not talking on the record about (For instance "a source in a position to know" should not be good enough, whereas in sports stories "a source close to PLAYER", which is widely understood to mean the player's agent (or, less commonly, a spouse or other family member), would be)

As above, but about
notable living people
whom we have, or otherwise would have, articles on regardless of whether the Mail (or any other otherwise facially reliable and mainstream source we might wish to subject to this sort of strict scrutiny) has reported on their alcohol-fueled fits of temper and/or sexual indiscretions with staff (well, not exclusively those things, but you get the idea).

Per the first bullet point, but allegations either (or preferably both) sourced to named individuals, again with the context as to how they would know this, or directly quoted.

Above, but about notable people.

Allegations sourced to documentary sources (including audio and video) rather than, or in addition to, individual people's recollections (An exception would be things alleged in affidavits in withdrawn lawsuits, since that's basically a perfectly legal way to smear someone in the media without having to worry about being held accountable for doing so; of course they're going to report it since well, the affiant said it in a document which they swore to under oath, so they're off the hook for its veracity. But we can hold ourselves to a better standard).

Allegations sourced to documentary sources that the news outlet shares with readers on its website to allow them to independently judge the credibility of its interpretation (A practice I'd like to see more of).

At the other end would be things like the sort of first-person pieces I discussed above, and matters of pure opinion like reviews of artworks, editorials and op-eds (as long as those are based on real facts).
Another suggestion I have might be that reportage from certain publications about certain things be required to be attributed to those sources inline rather than stated as if they were established (i.e., "The Daily Mail reported that X" instead of just "X"). Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Or we could simply say "no source is reliable for 'celebrity gossip' " and be done with it, of course. Collect (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Erm, avoid as much as humanly possible? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I do recall that a user had mentioned earlier that the DM does have some sort of review on theater performances. Those could be allowed on a case by case basis per the closing to the RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Just avoid it. If there is some reason you Absolutely Must Use it, you would be wise to post a notice at the article's talk page that you intend to use and provide a very clear reason as to why you Absolutely Must Use it. If your reasoning is great nobody should object. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Please refer to the top of my post, where I did make that sort of justification for one use. But ... the sort of people who tend to do these sort of edits also tend not to look at article talk pages, as they sort of get in the way of their "I will obey my programming ... I will fulfill my Prime Directive" mentality. And then when you try to argue these points with them, they start throwing tantrums and this does no one any good (this already happens with YouTube links). What I would really like is some sort of central place where these exceptions can be catalogued and backed up by consensus, like this section, that I can point to in that instance. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I see exactly the same problem. In particular when we get to situations, where people otherwise uninvolved with article topic start to remove content that was sourced by the Daily Mail without really bothering much to assess its veracity and appropriateness of the content or to look for alternative sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The Gawker story is slightly misleading. The Daily Mail published a story titled, “PORN INDUSTRY SHUTS DOWN WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AFTER ‘FEMALE PERFORMER’ TESTS POSITIVE FOR HIV.”[64] The article says, "The performer was not immediately identified and officials didn't say when the positive test was recorded." They included a stock picture, which happened to be of a "soft-core porn actress" , with the caption, "Ban: The Adult Production Health and Safety Services is conducting tests to see if the virus has spread to more porn actors." Bad as that may be, it is not as if there was anything inaccurate in the story. TFD (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
That's the Mail's spin on it. Yes. the Gawker piece should have clarified that the issue was about the accompanying photograph and not the story itself, but the underlying point was unchallenged: that the Mail committed not only a serious breach of journalistic ethics but a textbook example of (at least under US law) false light defamation by so recklessly using the photo in its story to imply that the identifiable woman depicted was the HIV-positive porn star described in the text (because, of course, that picture got more eyeballs on the story). When you do that, the accuracy of the story is beyond the point. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not the Mail's spin, that's what the Court of Appeal said. I don't see though how a Wikipedia editor could use the article as a source that a specific person had AIDS. TFD (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
That was how the Mail suggested it should be interpreted in their response to the Gawker story (they focused on the story, completely avoiding their recklessness in using the image). Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested we ban all "celebrity gossip" material from Wikipedia in any BLP whatsoever. Collect (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Collect: But how would you define "celebrity gossip"? I can see not including items about possible relationships, but pregnancies and coming out as gay/bi are biographical details we always include, and those often begin as "celebrity gossip" stories. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The history of Wikipedia is replete with "coming out" stories which ended up being not what was claimed, and worse. Wikipedia has no need to be a newspaper in the first place, and such "contentious claims" do not improve Wikipedia. If a story later turns out to be verified, then so be it - the deadline has been met. The possibility of damage is far worse than the damage done to our readers by not including such gossip, such as (for example) linking a person to being a cousin of a notorious killer, or calling a person a "Nazi money-launderer" where no such factual link actually existed. As long as it can be considered "gossip", or "anonymously sourced", we must and should be cautious in allowing its use. I commend you to read User:Collect/BLP to see how some editors abused Wikipedia in the past. Collect (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, point taken. I guess what I really mean to say is that there are some outlets which cover primarily the comings and goings of celebrities, but which do appear to be concerned about their reliability. Shall we define "celebrity gossip" by the outlet publishing it (no matter how much the outlet tries to be respectable in covering the story) or by the extent to which it shows its work, so to speak (see my bulleted list above).
And so there's no further confusion, I totally agree that we should not categorize people as LGBTIA until they themselves claim that identity (
Lana Wachowski's gender transition was discussed on the article's talk page years before she confirmed it; only then did we put it in the article with all the backstory about how long it had been rumored, as it is now. I do not think we disserved our readers at all). Daniel Case (talk
) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've no wish to add very much to the acres of text about TDM expended already on this page, but I completely endorse Daniel Case's point that clarification is needed about this 'ban' (many high quality RS describe it as a 'ban'). Might I suggest that the scope of that discussion should also embrace the issue that the RfC closure avoids, namely other sources with almost equally bad reputations for reliability and (just as serious IMO) for tendentious reporting and trivis-philia. If all this ban achieves is pushing editors into using other low quality sources for the same garbage (see examples above of other papers echoing TDM content), and ignoring those occasions when TDM is 'high quality', (such as notable guest contributors), then it will really have been a waste of everbody's time. Pincrete (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should in addition have some form of grandfather clause in this. For example, any DM sources that have been on an article for 6 months at least prior to the "ban" should be allowed to remain. It stands to reason that if they were unreliable, they would have been removed prior to the "ban". Or at the very least, limit the "ban" to BLPs and controversial subjects (with exceptions). I don't like the thought of an out-and-out "ban" giving licence to editors to take a Cromwellian WikiPuritanism approach to DM sources and be able to tear them out freely without considering the consequences without some form of limitation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Just because no one has noticed an unreliable source, doesn't mean the source is reliable. "When the source was added" is not a reliability criterion for any source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment There's another issue I'd like to address, which I hit while trying to edit our article
WP:DUE
issues - everything Snopes.com staff says about themselves is treated as a fact, not as self-reporting on their procedures (Example: "Where appropriate, pages are generally marked "undetermined" or "unverifiable" if the Mikkelsons feel there is not enough evidence to either support or disprove a given claim." and the reference cited for this is the Mikkelsons themselves - I find that uncomfortably near to primary sourcing. Unfortunately, the Mail has one of the few critical reports on snopes.com, but the effectively blanket ban on TDM articles prevents me from being able to balance the extreme weight given to statements made by the owner and staff of snopes.com about themselves in our article about them.

I freely admit that the TDM article regarding the owner and staff of snopes.com does lip-smack quite a lot about the things most loyal TDM readers like to read - a nasty marital spat between the founders of the Web site, allegations of embezzling of company funds to pay for sex, and the salacious resumes of two snopes.com staff.

But:
That the co-founders of snopes.com are no longer both there, and what one says about the other is fair and notable comment, and TDM seemed to source that information adequately well.

In particular, an accusation that the owner of a Web site Facebook uses as a referee to judge what "fake news" is has embezzled the site's corporate funds for personal purposes of any sort (salacious or not) and the overt, public political activities of its staff is information which can and should be cited with some degree of weight aside our article's present restating of snopes.com's
WP:PRIMARY
assurances that they're on the up and up, and always approach things objectively.

If snopes.com wants an advertisement, they ought to go somewhere else. We don't do them here - or we shouldn't, anyway.

I'd like to cite the two sources which have addressed these issues, that TDM article and an article by a
WP:NORULES
.

I'd insist on telling our readers inline what was said by TDM, because it's part of
WP:RS
evidence by a well-regarded editor, TDM at least writes their own copy.

There's also a
WP:CHURNALISM
discussion.

Who here would support a blanket ban on the use of Playboy as a source? They, until very recently, were much more explicit than TDM in their "glamour photography", but for most of their existence also printed interviews with eminent personalities (Alex Haley's interviews for that magazine are considered journalistic classics) and did not shy from controversy. I just think that when we blanket-prohibit any source, we do so at our readers' peril, because the project's aggregate point of view will push it in the direction enough editors push it in, and we stop being an encyclopedia; we become just another captive electronic media outlet for a consensus that's not really a consensus. loupgarous (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
People keep trying to make Some Big Deal out of the RfC on Daily Mail. It was no big deal - it just confirmed what had already happened on this board a zillion times and will hopefully prevent further wasting of the community's time. There is no big principle involved here. And the RfC close was clear that DM can be used but it needs to be very well justified on the local Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed Jytdog. Honestly I don't see much of a change anyway from normal usage of the DM. Previously, at least on the fringe articles that I frequent, any DM citation generally required really good justification anyway. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Spinoff

A user has inquired on my talk page about whether this webpage from The Spinoff can be used as a source for "Shape of You" being a tropical house song. In doing research for the article I had actually come across that very webpage, but after finding no information about the website on Wikipedia, I decided to play it safe and forgo using it (I understand that Wikipedia coverage is not what makes a source reliable). Being unable to give an assured answer myself, I've brought the question here. Can this webpage from The Spinoff be used to support a song genre? Thanks. Life of Tau 01:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the about page, an online magazine that employs an editor & staff writers and is subject to
New Zealand Press Council procedures. A quick search shows that it grew out of a blog by Duncan Greive, a recognised & award winning journo who is the publisher & editor. The Spinoff's business model means it features sponsored content which is clearly marked - this article is not, however close reading shows that it is effectively a 'letter to the editor' and the writer Mitchell Houlbrooke seems not to be a recognised music journalist, so I would say no to using this particular article as a source.--92.5.85.99 (talk
) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Although that article refers to him as an "aggrieved reader", Houlbrooke does appear to be a writer for The Spinoff's music section as a member of "Group Think"; here are a few articles he has contributed to ([65] [66] [67] [68]). That said, it is concerning that the article describes Houlbooke as an "aggrieved reader", as it may indicate that his piece was treated simply as a reader's submission and was not subjected to the site's editorial standards. Life of Tau 00:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Houlbrooke also has contributed one article under asolo byline. He is self described as a marketing exec on his linkedin profile, so my point about not being a professional music journalist stands I think, and your observation re:editorial standards on this piece is pertinent. Surely it's better to use widely recognised & accepted genre sources such as eg. Allmusic? rgds--92.5.85.99 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Labeling non-religious writers as part of an occult belief system

Is [69] "Occult America: The Secret History of how Mysticism Shaped Our Nation" By Mitch Horowitz
a reliable source for asserting that Napoleon Hill was "inspired by the New Thought movement]]?
Note that this source states "most inspirational literature published in America between 1875 and 1955 had some New Thought bent" which is an extraordinarily broad hook on which to label Hill, Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale as "New Thought writers."
"New Thought" is apparently The concept of New Thought (sometimes known as "Higher Thought"[3]) promotes the ideas that Infinite Intelligence, or God, is everywhere, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect ."
Napoleon Hill does not fall under this definition, nor does Horowitz ascribe such a belief to Hill and others.
In fact, this source states:

"In the 1930s nonreligious figures such as Dale Carnegie and Napoleon Hill rode the wings of New Thought to worldwide fame"

which is clearly a metaphorical statement rather than a statement of fact that they subscribed to New Thought itself. The source then adds Norman Vincent Peale, the entirely traditional mainline Christian preacher also into this occult religious tent.

"New Thought" was specifically an occult belief system, to which these authors did not belong at all, nor do other sources aver that they are believers in the occult. Ascribing membership in a group believing in the occult when there is no source making that claim, and this source connects them only be metaphor, in fact calling them "nonreligious", is not a "strong source" in my opinion, for explicitly connecting them in Wikipedia's voice to that occult group. Collect (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please update this discussion to indicate the multiple discussions on this topic, the multiple sources discussed, and the two (perhaps more) different ways sources link Hill to the New Thought Movement? --
talk
) 21:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Horowitz was the cite given. He specifically labels "New Thought" as a religious movement, and then specifies that these are non-religious writers, or at least in no way connected to the "New Thought" occultism. The distinction found in the major sources is clear - "New Thought" is religious in nature, and Dale Carnegie and Hill are not religious in nature. Seems a tad clear once I delved into some useless material. Collect (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If you're not going to make a good faith effort to identify the discussions on this topic, the other sources discussed, the multiple ways these sources connect Hill to New Thought; then why have you bothered making a request here? --
talk
) 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Try
WP:AGF before casting stones, please. I read the source, and it does not support the claim as worded in Wikipedia. Metaphors are an interesting construct, indeed. Collect (talk
) 14:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this might be better framed as "secular writers influenced by religious authors" rather than "non-religious writers as part of an occult belief system." Secular writers may or may not be non-religious, which makes it easier to understand influence from religious authors. Broadly speaking, there are secular writers who are influenced by religious writers (e.g.
Gerald Gardner and other neopagans. New Thought is not a single, coherent, monolithic doctrine organized by a recognized authority: there's a variety of teachings on a spectrum from "obviously religious" to "supposedly secular self-help." From this perspective, I'm not seeing what the problem is at all. Ian.thomson (talk
) 00:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the given source does not call the writers "New Thought", only that their writings came after "New Thought" writers opened up the "believe in yourself" area on the whole. That is why this author used a metaphor rather than a claim of fact. Collect (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Collect and Ian.thomson: Collect is correct about this source. It is being cherry picked to make the false claim that Napoleon Hill was a New Thought author. I don't know the reasons for that, but please note the problem with this source:

There is only passing mention of Napoleon Hill and that is limited to his name and the book he wrote, Think and Grow Rich, in the context of this one sentence: "In the 1930s, nonreligious figures like Dale Carnegie, (How to Win Friends and Influence people) and Napoleon Hill, (Think and Grow Rich), rode the wings of the New Thought to world wide fame." That's it. There is no claim that Carnegie or Hill were in the New Thought movement or inspired or influenced by it. Rather, this was talking about the marketplace at the time. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:, to address your comment about non-religious authors being influenced by religious authors, the tenets of New Thought are quite simple and are based on the Bible, sayings of Jesus in the New Testament, and are universal to all religions. At lot of it is based on the Golden Rule, which does not depend on religion. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, that Hill's book and a biography of Hill, A Lifetime of Riches: A Biography of Napoleon Hill, clearly talk about Hill coming in contact with Andrew Carnegie (no relation to Dale) who told him his secret to success: have a definite purpose and a belief that you can achieve your goal. That's it. Hill then interviewed either in person or through letters, other successful business men and women, who confirmed they too, followed that formula. There's no evidence that Andrew Carnegie was in the New Thought movement or inspired by it, or suggested to Hill that he was. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

But we're not labeling anyone as part of an occult belief system. We're simply identifying influences. Of course, Hill is prominently listed in Amazon's, GoodReads, and many others' New Thought authors lists, so there's not only the issue of New Thought influencing Hill, but that Hill is seen as a New Thought author under the "broad hook" that includes Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale. The single source seems fine for the information. I'd certainly like to expand upon it with more sources to make the distinctions discussed here, on the article talk page, and in the numerous sources discussed on the article talk page. --
talk
) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

But that doesn't answer the question, Why didn't Hill call it New Thought in his books? Why didn't he say in the introduction to his books that he was "influenced by New Thought?" You're simply taking any book on any subject that mentions Hill and New Thought in the same paragraph. That's not a source. Norman Vincent Peale was a Protestant minister and mentioned it in all his books. He never said anything about New Thought. Neither did Dale Carnegie. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There's so much here that needs to be addressed that I'm just going to have to do it as a paragraph instead of to individual posts:

As for the metaphor issue and claims that Horowitz is not explicit: a metaphor doesn't mean that there is absolutely no meaning. If you read the whole paragraph instead of cherry picking that one portion of a sentence out of its whole context within the paragraph, it is perfectly clear that the Horowitz means that New Thoughts ideas were secularized (removing the God stuff and leaving only the mind-over-matter stuff), and that Carnegie and Hill derived their success from this. It is absolutely unreasonable to arrive at any other conclusion from Horowitz on the matter. It's like picking apart the previous sentence to just "Read the whole paragraph" and claiming I made no further argument.

As for the issue that Hill (and Carnegie) hides explicit influence from New Thought and that a single biographer appears to have failed to make the connection --
that doesn't really matter when there's a source that is specifically about tracing these influences on American authors, by a specialist on that topic, that pretty clearly says that a lot of self-help authors borrowed ideas from New Thought and presents Carnegie and Hill as examples. If counter-sources are presented that explicitly claim that Horowitz is wrong, that would be something. Horowitz also addresses this ("Its ideas were so widely adopted—a sociological study of the 1950s found that most inspirational literature published in America between 1875 and 1955 had some kind of New Thought bent—that the source itself became obscured. Secularized elements of the New Thought philosophy successfully vied for influence with the more religiously inspired variants"). If we're going to use original research in this discussion, then we have to remember that New Thought did get some opposition and that Hill was writing at an era when many authors were pretending to secularize their teachings out of some idea that their truths would be even truer if they weren't part of any sect or creed (what with there being so many denominations, it was necessary to do so to gain any followers). Emersonianism is pretty much Hermeticism stripped of all its religious imagery (and I can find a citation from A. E. Waite to support that!). Spiritualists such as Paschal Beverly Randolph often likewise took ideas from renaissance magical works and rehashed them in a less explicitly Catholic context. Helena Blavatsky
tried to apply the same process to all of religion.

As for the idea that "the tenets of New Thought are quite simple and are based on the Bible, sayings of Jesus in the New Testament, and are universal to all religions" -- while New Thought's eclecticism allows it to adopt ideas from a variety of sources, what primarily distinguishes New Thought from other belief systems is its belief that our thoughts directly and materially influence the world -- and that we should practice this and try to use it as much as possible to help people. While New Thought may accept the Golden Rule, that's not the Golden Rule. Now, let's compare that Jesus's teachings on the
Swedenborgianism, and Emersonian Transcendentalism
, all of which have ideas that are not accepted by many religions.

Hill's idea that having "a belief that you can achieve your goal" will result in the achievement of that goal is New Thought. It is the same as 'sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect'. The emphasis on belief resulting in action (belief over work) is New Thought's influence on self-help authors.

And as for Norman Vincent Peale supposedly being an "entirely traditional mainline Christian preacher," it's pretty obvious that he wasn't, unless one cannot tell the difference between Moralistic therapeutic deism and historical Christianity, in which case one is not in a position to distinguish between Hill and New Thought.

At any rate, I can't help but get the impression that all this seems to be rooted in some idea that occultism has to be as far away from the mainstream as possible -- i.e. personal disagreement in Horowitz's central thesis. Mastrocinque's "From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism" pretty clearly shows that Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire because of "occult" groups that had previously been trying to reconcile Jewish monotheism with pagan magical beliefs.
Invisible college). Then there's Tycho Brahe's and Giordano Bruno's acceptance of heliocentrism for alchemical reasons. Ian.thomson (talk
) 04:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources provided for The Russian Bride

With several users claiming that none of the nine sources used in The Russian Bride is in any way reliable, but unwilling to explain or discuss, I'm asking for input. Note that this still remains relevant even after the article is deleted, (a) for my and everyone's understanding and (b) since in that case the article may well be resurrected in the nearby future, as development of the topic is ongoing. The following sources are used.

The topic's official website, for existence, company, plot summary, cast and crew.

The topic's crowdfunding page, for existence, purpose of its crowdfunding, and mention of premiere and DVD.

A preview in Decay Magazine, quoting a comment on the topic's theme.

An interview in Posh Kids Magazine with one of the lead actors, a model, to indicate her career move.

A preview in Horror Movies CA, for a quote about her talent.

A casting call in Backstage, for roles and filming location.

The topic's official newsletter, for info on funding and planned start of filming.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, for the existence of the topic's LLC.

The topic's official Facebook page, for the existence of its trailer.

Thanks in advance. Lyrda (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Material which is essentially from any "self-published source" is generally deprecated on Wikipedia. The sources listed are either SPS (including press releases), tangential, or en passant entirely. Please find strong third-party sources. Collect (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:SOURCE, the party publishing about it is. Unsure which ones you call tangential or en passant, or why that matters with regard to reliability. Lyrda (talk
) 00:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: at the moment these seem to be the best sources available. They may not be enough to establish notability, but that isn't the question. Lyrda (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

With Deadline added, the number of sources has now risen to 13. Lyrda (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Official websites are often poor sources for the plot of any given work, as they lack in detail and may have a promotional tone. As the company's identification of its own productions, they may be used as primary sources. Primary sources are not banned, but should be used with caution.

Decay is an online magazine, established in 2014. It describes itself as a magazine devoted to the horror, thriller and sci-fi genres. Based on the contents, it also includes some fantasy topics. It has sections on Conan the Barbarian, part of the sword and sorcery subgenre. I am not certain if it counts as a reliable source, but I do not see anything particularly objectionable here.

Posh Kids is a magazine devoted to fashion, entertainment, and lifestyle. Nothing too unusual here, and it seems to have interviews with a number of actors.

Horror Movies CA is a website devoted to horror films, established in 2005. It has numerous news article about the genre, a number of reviews, and articles on related topics. I am not certain who owns the website. I don't see ownership information.

Backstage (magazine) might be a better source. Established in 1960, it is an entertainment industry-related magazine. Its intended audience is not the general public, but people already working in film, television, and theatre who are seeking information on casting, job opportunities, and career advice.

Official newsletters are primary sources and may be biased or unreliable. On the topic of funding, there have been cases where film companies published inaccurate information on their funding sources, overstated or understated their budgets, and broke a number of industry regulations when in came to their accounting. Several of our articles on film companies focus on cases which went to court, or led to the company's demise.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is a primary source on employment, professional licensing, construction, and commerce in the state of Michigan. I would consider it reliable, but it is not exactly a specialized resource on film.

I may be incorrect here, but I have been working on film articles for a number of years. Most of our film articles do not even mention information on the trailer of any given film. I am not certain why should we include trailer information here. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Copied to afd Lyrda (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very helpful. I included the trailer because it has attracted a lot of attention, primarily of course among Kristina Pimenova followers. Lyrda (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Forward

I want to add this text to the article for Sebastian Gorka but the text is being kept out on the pretext that the Forward is not a reliable source:

In February 2017, the Forward reported that while Gorka was active in Hungarian politics, he had "close ties then to Hungarian far-right circles".^[1] The Forward also reported that he "has in the past chosen to work with openly racist and anti-Semitic groups and public figures."^[1] The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures."^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Exclusive: Senior Trump Aide Forged Key Ties To Anti-Semitic Groups In Hungary". The Forward. Retrieved 2017-02-24.

I also want to add that this story has been republished by Haaretz[70], and re-reported by Foreign Policy magazine[71], New York Magazine[72] and the New Yorker[73]. I am here to enquire as to whether the Forwards should be considered a reliable source and this content included in the article.
talk
) 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Forward is a reliable source. It has a long history; editorial control; separation between news and opinion; and it
cited by others. The specific citation here is news reporting; it is an "an investigation by the Forward into Gorka’s activities from 2002 to 2007." So I would consider that certainly usable. Neutrality^talk
20:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Symposium paper as a source

I notice in the
Bankstown Central Shopping Centre article , someone has used this http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/humanity/2007/mbailey3.html to justify the statement the Centre remains an important part of the civic life of this region of Sydney. firstly the source doesn't say it, and this is just a symposium paper. LibStar (talk
) 03:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That paper is not a good source for the claim made. It does not even make that claim. What I found rather interesting was "Where Bankstown Square’s development approval process was compromised by the corrupt activities of a local government, " along with details about bribery etc. which seems a trifle at odds with the claim made. Collect (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
also another dubious claim linked to this symposium paper it also became a centre of community and governmental service provision for south-western Sydney. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Pot. O.K. I admit it. I am black. Signed, Kettle.

So I noticed that BuzzFeed said "Everyone knows that Twitter and Facebook spread bad information and hate speech. But YouTube may be even worse."[74]
In a related story,
ed] to have said "Everyone knows that Mao Zedong and Pol Pot have killed a lot of people. But Adolf Hitler may be even worse." --Guy Macon (talk
) 03:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Shukan Shincho

Anyone know anything about the Japanese weekly
Shukan Shincho? It's being used as a source for something that might be considered contentious at Kim Jong-nam. He died recently enough that I think this could still be considered a BLP issue. Discussion is at Talk:Kim Jong-nam#Tokyo bathhouse. Kendall-K1 (talk
) 03:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Are news articles written by TechCrunch staff considered RS?

I am not talking about blogs by contributors but those written by the staff. See examples listed under: Alexia Tsotsis, Andrew Sweeney, Connie Loisos, Sarah Perez. Off-course that excludes articles about partner companies disclosed which are Amazon, Skimlinks, and Wirecutter, The New York Times. They seem legit because in past they have retracted mistakes [75] —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT, the "news articles" either rely on press releases, or are personal opinions of the writers. IMO, this makes their use other than as opinion cited as opinion moot. The press releases fall into a different category, but are not "best source" in any event. Collect (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

TeleCrunch articles are not of uniform. quality. Some do seem to be unbiased journalism or comparative discussions. Most however are influenced to a considerable extent by PR. A good indicator of PR is interviews in which the subject does all the talking, with possible oneor two sentence of mild evaluation added by the reporter. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider TechCrunch as RS - even staff posts. The level of fact checking is doubtful and there is often an undisclosed conflict of interest. This was covered in a Guardian article and this WSJ article. It is quite easy to get coverage on TechCrunch btw. All one needs to do is to pitch an article (which can be a redressed press release) to a staff/contributor. This is easily done using freelancer sites like Elance/Upwork. This previous discussion may be useful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_221&oldid=1136075162"

[:20-1] Judah (2008), p. 153

[:10-2] ISSN 0261-3077
. Retrieved 2017-01-25.

[:30-3] Judah (2008), p. 154

[4] Tazewell Republican. (Tazewell, Va.), 18 June 1903. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. <http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn95079154/1903-06-18/ed-1/seq-1/>

[Novak-5] Cite error: The named reference Novak was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[6] The Pensacola Journal. (Pensacola, Fla.), 17 Oct. 1908. Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. <http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87062268/1908-10-17/ed-1/seq-3/>

[:1-7] "Exclusive: Senior Trump Aide Forged Key Ties To Anti-Semitic Groups In Hungary". The Forward. Retrieved 2017-02-24.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

Fringe theory pushed and mainstream view marginalized

Article on "Tiger Forces" relies heavily on bias, non-verifiable source

limiting more yellow Journalism

Blanket warning message on all news outlets

Warning message for specific news outlets

The Daily Express

TheLocal

The Onion

Forbes.com

Have we boycotted a mainstream news outlet before?

Huffinton Post

Material sourced to Daily Mail in "St Paul's Survives"

Public perception OF Daily Mail RfC

Appropriate referencing for steel-reinforced straw men made by an ice cream manufacturer

Forbes Articles

Is Google Maps a reliable source for boundaries of a neighborhood?

IJR.com / "Independent Journal Review"

Donald Trump–Russia dossier

Daily Mail vs Huffington Post

Article Bio website as a source

Source

symposium paper as a source

Basriat

How has Daily Mail affected accuracy of Wikipedia articles?

Call for close

Abebe Bikila: Accident

Article published by David Publishing

"location" in cite news

Sources regarding Tsamiko and Osman Taka dances. Do they meet Wikipedia criteria for reliability ?

Changing a bizarre Wiki rule on sourcing

Casualty Statistics: Participation in hostilities irrelevant?

Citation included for BLUE material that may also include COPYVIOs?

paleofuture.gizmodo.com in Napoleon Hill

Discussion on info in initial RSN request and related edits

Refocus

journeymart.com

Mondoweiss

Google News Search seems less useful for finding reliable sources.

Institute for Legal Reform claims to support statement that particular lawyers "regularly manipulate litigation" etc.

Daily Mail (again- sorry!)

Can we have clearer guidance on what sort of sourcing from the Mail is and isn't OK?

The Spinoff

Labeling non-religious writers as part of an occult belief system

Sources provided for The Russian Bride

The Forward

Symposium paper as a source

Dear Pot. O.K. I admit it. I am black. Signed, Kettle.

Shukan Shincho

Are news articles written by TechCrunch staff considered RS?