Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239

At

• Greer is an accomplished archival historian (Shakespeare's Wife (2007), who bought land in Yugambeh territory and over several years examined the history of the region. It can be searched in Google Books, the sources she used can be verified. It is in short a piece of regional history written by an Australian scholar of world-wide repute.

• Rory O’Connor is a man of Yugambeh origins, who wrote and self-published his book on the people. We know the book exists, but we have no way of accessing it, or verifying its contents and assertions.

The editors who want to remove Greer and put in O'Connor,

I have no idea what the 'truth' is. All I know is that experts have remarked on considerable confusion in our sources, and, like Greer who cites them, mention these problems. People of Yugambeh descent are conflicted about many claims various descendants have made. Can third parties please tell me why O'Connor's inaccessible self-published book is RS, while Greer's is, I am told, RS only in so far as that might be 'rat shit'.Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the other book, but Greers work, from reading a page from your link, does not exactly strike me as an ethnography, nor is it described as such. Greer is called a "towering polemicist, Shakespearean academic, ex-pornographer and author of The Female Eunuch" but nothing in there suggests she's a qualified ethnographer, an expert on the Yugambeh people or a reliable source in this context. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hardly any of that page is written from sources made by a qualified ethnographer, 19 sources fail that test. 7 sources are written by qualified linguists or historians. If the rule was no ethnographic article can be written by anyone who is not an ethnographer, almost 98% of these articles couldn't be written. I am not citing controversial opinions by Greer: I am citing her technical synopsis of the existing scholarship on a single issue (which I have checked against several of the sources she uses: it is uncontroversial. Except for one detail she cites to one of the most accomplished linguistic experts, Margaret Sharpe, her remarks are very close to those made by the historian Longhurst 1980 p.18, per the talk page) Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Then cite the linguist(s)/historian(s) Greer cites. Get it from the horses mouth instead of a second hand summary by an activist writer with no history in the field. If you insist on citing Greer, an attribution would be necessary. Greer isn't exactly known for her evenhanded, levelheaded approach to her subject. If she were, she wouldn't be a "towering polemicist" as The Guardian calls her. Kleuske (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Self-published and inaccessible would make the O'Connor book almost completely unuseable regardless of Greer. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, Greer is not an expert in this field, But then self published books are generally also not RS unless by an expert, is Rory O’Connoran acknowledged expert (is he indeed self published)? If this is the case he cannot be used and her opinions must not be stated as fact but her opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Greer has two sides, the dryasdust cautious scholar, who works Elizabethan era parish archives, and everyone recognizes that virtue in works like those on Shakespeare's wife. I.e. she is accustomed to the hard slog of source detection and evaluation, and when those gifts are present she is reliable. It's wrong to suggest that, because she has a history of polemics on vital contemporary issues, that in fossicking out the details of her adopted landscape in Queensland, she won't or can't separate the passionate feelings of her love affair with the rainforest from the evaluation of facts or the relevant scholarly literature. I found that the some of the remarks she was challenged over were similar to those of a recognized local historian - they both consulted the same source and came to the same summary of that source. On one important detail she adds a crucial element not available as far as I can see, in other technical sources, and stipulates she got it from Margaret Sharpe, who lives just an hour or so drive away from her own home. Why on earth would she fake evidence from Sharpe knowing the latter, as an interested scholar, would read her account? I think that attribution of Sharpe's view to Greer is fair, and gets over the impasse (until I can access the otherwise obscure source by Sharpe she appears to have used.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything about Greers abilities. I am suggesting the article would be better served if you cited the original authors Greer cites. Besides, as good as her work on Shakespeare's wife is, this book is not a scholarly study and shouldn't be treated as such. Kleuske (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not treating it as a scholarly study. I have included every source except one which I cannot yet find of the authors cited by Greer. It is a simple faute de mieux provisory solution, like much else on Wikipedia. My normal practice is to cite nothing but authorities or authoritative sources, but there is a 5% margin where important details can only be obtained, provisorily by good, but not perfect, secondary works as here. 99% of wiki articles don't adopt that high bar. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You're treating Greer, herself, as a reliable source on this subject. Greer is an incendiary shock jock, has no background whatsoever in indigenous history, and even her attempts at history are heavily polemic. It is absurd to treat her as more of an authority on an indigenous people in Queensland than the local historian who runs a museum about his people and - unlike Greer - is actually recognised as an authority on them in other reliable sources at a national level. There is no reason why you and BlackfullaLinguist, as two people who've read all of the subject material, can't hash out a compromise about how to work with the Greer source and other related issues, but I object in the strongest terms to you trying to strongarm him because you passionately like a book which to a neutral observer cannot be considered an

WP:RS. You've made absolutely no attempt to do so beyond a bullying justification on the talk page and then unsuccessfully trying to whip up a crowd here instead of actually making any attempt whatsoever to get to the bottom of the dispute with BlackfullaLinguist. The Drover's Wife (talk

) 21:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I've read a dozen of Greer's works. incendiary shock jock is silly. Vigorous polemic by the intelligently informed lies at the heart of Western thought and scholarship. By that token, Karl Popper nis an incendiary shockjock for calling Plato a fascist, and Hegel a windbag. I do not treat her as an authority on indigenous history. And I have no passionate attachment to that book of hers. Far too chatty, and for my ends, unfocused. I have, over 600 articles, included lots of material by people without her rigorous training in archival history. Rory O'Connor, unfortunately, cannot be used, unlike Ysola Best, his aunt, because he is self-published. And secondly, he appears to make (see my edit now at the talk page) an elementary confusion between Yugambeh and Kombumerri of the very kind that has vexed the editing of this page, which when I first looked at it, seemed to consider these were interchangeable (which is precisely Greer's observation and objection). I've been working towards a compromise with BL from the start. In talking of strongarm tactics, it is better to look at the history here. When Margaret Sharpe began teaching Yugambeh in Queensland, she was confronted by the Kombumerri Corporation's insistence that they throw out the far better attested other dialects, and base the course on the Nerang river dialect they favoured, which only has 500 words (and which according to some linguistics may not be Yugambeh). It's that kind of sub-ethnic nationalism I am very sensitive to, its failure to accept that the fucked up archives that contain the residues of great cultures decimated by whites must be given close impartial attention, with no regard to the politics of knowledge, other than being wary of their intrusiveness. Land claims and defending one's dignity are one thing: seeing the past without fear or favour another.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Margaret attempted to teach Bundjalung, as at the time the Linguistic concensus was that there was just a single Bundjalung language and Yugambeh was simply a dialect with barely any information. It was the insistence of the Kombumerri corp that she research the northern dialects which lead to her later works throughout the late 80s and 90s. Margaret is also a personal friend of mine, whom I correspond with quite frequently, I even attended an astronomy talk of hers where she used my family's kangaroo lore as part of her evidence. Margaret also visits us often, where she either stays with Rory or his mother Pat O'Connor (An Elder who met the Queen last year as part of the Commonwealth games). Also, if you want copies of her work to read, I have pdf versions I can email you, also any source you claim is 'unaccessible' I 100% have a copy of. I have copies of everyone'swork, Tindale, Crowley, Geyteenbeeks, Sharpe, Cunningham, science of man, curr, bray, etc, if it has anything to do with my people I can assure you I ROMTIC'ed it all. (ROMTIC is the Retutn of Material to Traditional Indigenous Communities, any book in AIATSIS tagged with Yugambeh E17, I have requested. Linguistics, anthropology, musicology, newspaper articles, etc. BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. We can I think work together fruitfully on the talk page, where I'll take up your extremely generous offer to get access to those sources. There's a lot of work to be done, and with your expertise and my knowledge of the wiki rulebook, I reckon we should be able to make the Yugambeh page one of the outstanding aboriginal pages on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

O'Connor can be used - because he's a recognised authority on the subject, and the guidelines regarding self-published sources explicitly recognise that as making for a usable source. You claim it is an "elementary confusion", BlackfullaLinguist on the talk page claims in some detail that you're confused (which you've so far refused to engage with). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Recognized by whom for what? Google finds pages like this which show that O'Connor was a journalist and is Director of Yugambeh Museum, and strives to keep Yugambeh heritage alive. That indicates a passionate interest but does not support Wikipedia's notion of a reliable source. As Only in death noted above, self-published and inaccessible mean that a source fails WP:V and WP:RS. Greer has been purposefully controversial, but describing her as an idiot is ridiculous given her PhD and long list of published works. At any rate, the Greer vs. O'Connor point is a red herring. The question for this noticeboard should be "is source X suitable verification for assertion Y?" Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually check that it was "inaccessible" before making that claim? His book is available in 28 libraries in four states and the ACT. I'm at the other end of the continent and I can access his work any time I need. O'Connor is an expert in the subject matter who is treated as such in reliable sources, and so is an acceptable source within Wikipedia's self-publishing guidelines. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

By inaccessible I meant not independently verifiable being undigitalised. Of course, as I said elsewhere, when these inaccessible works can be read by editors, what they do is transcribe the contested passage for other editors, so that the verification processs is in order. We've done this many times.

Look, all outside editors here agree O'Connor fails

WP:RS. Numerous sources I would cite for Palestinian articles don't get past RS, as defined, and I know that. I read them and, if some information is invaluable, I work my guts out to find a source with that detail - sometimes this takes years. There is nothing personal about this at all. The fundamental rule wikipedians have to have drummed into their heads is that the ambition of the project to become the world's default source for reliable information on anything can only be pursued if we, as editors, guarantee that we have exhaustively verified the information given from the best reliable sources. In this case, we try to see where Best and O'Connor got that information. I've done work on several Aboriginal pages re dolphins, and naturally want to chase this claim down. I generally avoid editing the subjects I know thoroughly because the temptation to use my personal knowledge has to be resisted. It's hard, I know, but it is an iron-hard rule here. Nishidani (talk

) 15:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

At what point is the fact that a reliable source quotes a Wordpress blog for a statement of fact give an imprimatur to the claim made in that blog? This is currently the gist of a dispute at Talk:David Ogden Stiers where prior discussions held the defunct "Gossip-boy" blog was not reliable, but which has now been quoted in reliable sources, sometimes with no attribution. (I rather figure that eliding attribution on a lengthy and exact quote does not make it into a "different source", by the way. What is does is show blatant plagiarism by the "reliable sources" which is now common). (The notice of the RfC above appears to give a notice sans information about the actual issues involved) Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that some are trying to say is not reliable anymore. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-ogden-stiers-p6kx0dn9k So is this a RS? ContentEditman (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source which unambiguously describes the interview as factual. I feel that this settles it decisively; including that source immediately removes any

WP:RS issues. ABC News is an impeccable source, and there is no reason whatsoever to doubt them in this case - there was no objections, no retractions, no indication that there is any reason to question them. I suggest including that source and speedy-closing the RFC as moot. --Aquillion (talk

) 01:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have read the discussion first, including this comment: What you have there is a mix of sources we already looked at and new sources that have the same problem: they are citing gossip-boy (although the fox news is claiming to reference an abc interview, the date suggests they are just refering to ABC's coverage of the gossip-boy source.--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 01:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, people knew the actual source was ABC News from the start, and still tried to raise an

WP:RFC; if the ABC News source was known at the start, the question should be "is this ABC News source reliable?" --Aquillion (talk

) 02:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Per Reliable Sources in

WP:NPOV, which follows these multiple RS in presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk

) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

OR is only prohibited in article content, not in discussions among editors. We absolutely should be engaging in original research to determine whether sources are reliable or not, whether to use source or wiki voice, how to ensure our articles are NPOV, etc.

That being said, RS works on trust: We trust those source we consider to be reliable, even when they say something we suspect. So if an RS quotes a blog, then we can see that as the RS endorsing the claims in the blog as true, which is -for our purposes here- functionally the same as if the RS made the claim itself.

So while we should never use OR as an excuse to exclude reliably sourced content, it's perfectly fine for an editor to dig into it to see whether or not it really is reliably sourced. They just have to keep in mind that our standards can't be overridden by their personal preference. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if the major sources (NYT, WaPo etc) are explicitly quoting from the blog then the statements are not reliable. If, on the other hand, they are making a direct statement in their 'voice' then we should be obliges to consider it reliable.

WP:RS requires 'a reputation for fact checking and accuracy' and therefore, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise, we assume that they checked their facts and base what we say on the strength of the re-publisher not the original blog source.

Whether his sexuality needs to be addressed in the article is another question entirely and it does not seem to have been a large enough component of his public life to merit mention. We would not be saying '...and he was straight'. So why say '... and he was gay'? Jbh ^Talk

23:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me take that last question, even though it is as you note totally off-topic - just look carefully at your question, it is, how to put this delicately, entirely personal bias - your question does not care what the sources wrote about his life - it begins with a personal proposition, 'I would not say this, so I would not write that' - which is entirely backwards, we first read the sources that wrote about his life and then we write what they wrote about (whether we approve or not) - that is NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)} Huh? What I said is that if his sexuality was covered so sparsely that the only 'original reporting' on it is a blog then it is not significant enough to put in his biography no more than we would comment on the sexuality of a straight person whose orientation was mentioned once in a blog. In other words it looks like this whole discussion is looking for an excuse to say he was gay when there is no evidence presented that his sexuality, whatever it was, was a significant part of his life since the only reference to it before his death was on a blog post. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple prominent reliable sources have reported on his life and yes this matter of him coming out in the context of his life - writing as sources do, it is therefore something to reflect in writing about his life (whether we personally disapprove or not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then why are we discussing a blog if there is sourced commentary during his life?! Jbh ^Talk 01:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears some disapprove of what multiple sources wrote about his life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to assume that an RS ,even a high quality one with the rigors for fact-checking, is necessarily 100% right. In the Stiers situations, where we know that the bulk of all other RSes based this assessment on a bad blog and mentioned that blogs, and other RSes published near the same time with the same info did not include that citation, that it's likely coming from the same bad blog and we should use the same caution and not assume as fact. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No one is proposing to assume anything, people are just wanting to attribute what multiple public reliable sources wrote about the topic, which is what NPOV requires. Frankly, it's bizarre, that some think they are doing anything that makes any serious or useful sense, when dozens of reliable sources talk about his life - people who research his life will know this stuff. And it's even more of a rabbit hole because we will be linking to these RS articles in our article - because no one is going to ban these sources from our article - it is quite ludicrous. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because we consider these sources reliable the rebuttable presumption is that they did, indeed, check the facts. The tell-tail is whether they are attributing the quote to the blog - in which case they might not have been able to confirm it elsewhere or if they stated it as an unattributed fact. If the later than, because of the reputation for…, we can rightly assume that they checked their facts. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wait... is this source being used to try to to "out" this BLP? If so, that's a whole different can of worms (and my answer is to that is "Hell no"). Oh, and the "reputation for fact checking" comes into play when the RS decides to quote the other source. The RS has a reputation for fact checking. Hence, we can assume they fact checked this quote before reporting on it. Unless they give the quote and then argue with it, or give it as an example of things said by one side of a debate, then the RSes reputation applies to the quote, just as it would apply to anything written by the author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The RS that editors want to use are the two Times on both sides of the Atlantic, the WaPo, ABC, NBC, etc. And, I can go into BLP more but it's not the topic of this board - to begin with, the person is dead. (So, we already know what the RS will write about his life, because they already have). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I stand by my statement that the information is verifiable. But my response of "hell no" to stating his sexuality above follows my usual rule of thumb for

WP:DUE claims: If it changes the narrative in some way, it's due. If it doesn't, it's not. So if knowing that this BLP was gay would change how the rest of the article reads (to a person who couldn't care less about his sexuality for its own sake), then it's acceptable to state it. Or if the claim that he was nominally straight changes how the rest of the article reads, then it's due to state his sexuality. In short, if a reader can't determine that a BLP was gay from reading the article, and it wouldn't change the tone of any other claims (such as a highly notable, long-term friendship with a person of the same gender that was not previously believed to have any romantic component, but which it later turned out to have), then adding it to the article is completely undue, especially if the person in question never came out publicly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case I believe it is a major part of his life as he had to deny he was gay in the past due to risk of losing voice work, esp on children shows. At least that was his worry and he said as much. No history of family, relationships, etc... and why he denied he was gay in the past really shows how he had to live his life and it affected his work as well. I was really surprised it was not already on his page when he passed. But I digress, this thread is mostly for is The Time, ABC, etc... reliable sources. Of which I believe they are in this case. ContentEditman (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel the general rule is that it's inappropriate to second-guess an otherwise reliable source based purely on an objection along the lines of "they shouldn't be covering this; why are they reporting on a blog?". Without that approach, we would never be able to cover things happening on Twitter or Reddit at all, even when they're extensively reported in reliable sources. Another common example is a story that starts on eg. the Daily Mail and is later republished in a reliable source; in that case, we could cite the second source. It's important to pay attention to the tone and wording of the secondary source we're using, of course (if it's cautiously worded, we'd want to reflect that ourselves, eg. by saying inline that "a blog said that...") But essentially, coverage in reliable sources attests that the blogpost is noteworthy and 'real' insofar as we can describe the facts that the reliable source covering it does. It's extremely important to pay attention to the wording in the source we're using, though; essentially, if a New York Times article says "a blog accused this politician of adultery", we could then say "a blog accused this politician of adultery" and cite it to the Times, since the Times coverage establishes that the accusation is real and noteworthy despite being on a blog itself. We couldn't use that to say "this politician is guilty of adultery", because that's not what the Times said (even if it's what the blog says - after all, the blog itself isn't our source.) This is no different than using an

WP:RS if we cited them directly.) --Aquillion (talk

) 23:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Should books published by Books on Demand GmbH located in Norderstedt Germany, be considered a reliable source? A search shows hundreds of Wikipedia articles citing BOD publications as a source.

Both their website and the German article

WP:MIRROR. Never use. - Sitush (talk

) 00:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

What can be done, then, for the hundreds of articles already citing it? A bot? Get someone to let AWB go to town on them, perhaps tagging them all {{

Better source}} with SPS in the reason? An edit filter to alert users going forward? Mathglot (talk

) 01:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds? Yep, hundreds. [20] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this:Günter Preuß is pretty bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested if the sources used are reliable in context. More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh em eff gee. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup... it’s confirmed... Wikipedians can argue about anything. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This takes

lameness to a new level, someone create an entry if there isn't already one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

16:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The page for Jeremy Bates (American football) incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.128 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018‎ (UTC)

I'll fix it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Source A says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."'
• No one has yet read source B.
• Wikipedia article says 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: B).

I believe this is plagiarism, and Wikipedia should say

• 'According to source A, In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A) or
• 'In source B, Ralph wrote "Water is Wet."' (Source: A).

Please confirm or correct my understanding. Thanks! Carte Rouge (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

See

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... we should both attribute and cite to source A, unless we have seen source B. Blueboar (talk

) 14:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The link is quite helpful. Best wishes. Carte Rouge (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We are currently in a heated discussion right now over the reliable sources added to Bullet Club member Gino Gambino and this user claims BLP and keeps reverting it so I was wondering if these independent sources are reliable [21]

[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Can you link to the diffs of the agreement? The last revert that I checked[23] is not really pointing to the sources that you have linked here. Excelse (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a source that another user have provided when added Gambino [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan (talk • contribs)

Cagematch? I don't see how it is supporting the information of him joining Bullet Club, though the information seems authentic: [25] Excelse (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Suggest you check out the talk page of the Bullet Club article. All the sources given so far have been proven to be unreliable by Addicted4517 per WP:BLP. Contentious claims require independent reliable sources. None have been given yet. NotMemberofBC (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

A working paper by a PhD candidate alone should not be taken as a reliable source; without publication, its not been subject to peer-review, and without that, a relatively unknown PhD candidate is not an expert. But I would agree that if you have RSes pointing to the paper, then the conclusions of the paper as reflected by the reliable sources can be included, but one should be careful to take other aspects of the paper not mentioned by it as fact. --Masem (t) 18:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Any news site can look around for something that supports the viewpoint they want supported. That doesn't mean it should get into this encyclopedia simply because it says what some editors might want to hear. Dream Focus 18:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I said the paper should be presented through the eyes of the RS, and not taken outside of that by itself (at least, while it remains unpublished). And yes, the Bloomberg piece is opinion, so that should be even more caution on the wording. "(So and so), writing for Bloomberg, supported the need for immigration, pointing to a 20xx working paper that suggest tech sections can benefit from such an influx." (or something like that, I'm scanning the BB article). Just can't use the working paper alone without the referencing source. --Masem (t) 18:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

As close as I can tell, that paper wasn't really published in any sense of the word. It was submitted to the conference, but I didn't see any indication that it was selected. The fact that it was found through the website doesn't really indicate to me that it was published through them, and not placed there for members to review for selection. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've done a bit more digging, and I found the paper was accepted and set to be presented on June 13th at the Druid 2016 conference. So I retract what I said about it not really being published. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a paper at a conference is not equal to publication after a peer review process. If this paper's conclusion hold under scrutiny of peer review and result in a credible journal publication, we can still add it later. We have time, we're not in the business of churnalism. --bender235 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was equal to publication after a peer review process. My point is that it meets our minimum requirements for being considered published. And while I'm not a fan of low quality sources filling up Wikipedia, I try to limit reasons to exclude based on written policies. In this case I thought it wasn't what would be considered published, and I was wrong. This doesn't mean I support inclusion. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Pretty much in agreement with Masem. A working paper, by itself, is not sufficient sourcing (subject to change once it's formally published in the scholarly literature). If the working paper has been covered by independent, reliable secondary sources, then the material is potentially acceptable for inclusion, in the context of those reliable sources. Bloomberg is generally a reliable source, but the Bloomberg piece in question is an opinion article, not news reporting—so it should not generally be used for statements of fact. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• We use reliable secondary sources reporting on the paper to gauge its notability. If someone in Bloomberg commented on it, the information in the Bloomberg article pertinent to the paper and only that, not any content not touched on by Bloomberg, is notable enough for inclusion. But is the person making the statement of opinion notable enough we ought to include his opinion? Our article on Leonid Bershidsky shows that he's a journalist who has covered the subject matter in question for Bloomberg and other news media. I'd say that gives him enough notability that he can be quoted on what he finds significant about the paper. loupgarous (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

While attempting to add statements by Seth Rich's parents to the "Murder of Seth Rich" Talk page for eventual inclusion in the article, I was informed by an editor that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

So I am now inquiring about an exception, since the Daily Mail has an exclusive video interview with Seth Rich's father in which he states (on camera):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html (the video is embedded in the page, after some photos, and has a title "Seth Rich's father reveals son was joining Hillary campaign)

In the video, Seth Rich's father can be seen and simultaneously heard stating, "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him."

So, it appears to me that the truthfulness of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, and the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence.

This inquiry about an exception to the "generally unreliable" vote at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC is separate from any ongoing discussion to possibly include the quote in the "Murder of Seth Rich" article. So far, documentation of the job offer there has been suppressed. At the very least, it should be added as a reference.StreetSign (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason most editors at that page have given you for exclusion is not just that the DM is unreliable, but also that this is

WP:UNDUE information that promotes a conspiracy theory. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

But one of the reasons given was that DM is "unreliable", and that statement influenced editors. My question here is if a published video of Seth Rich's father stating "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him." can be a reliable source. So, can it be a reliable source? StreetSign (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. No answer you get here will change whether or not that claim is due in the article. And the Daily Mail has a reputation for photoshopping images. If they could have altered that video (which they almost certainly could have done, though how well is another question), then the fact that no-one else reported on it speaks volumes about its reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "no one else reported it"? That is deliberately deceptive. I have already reported that CNN and WashingtonPost have reported that Seth Rich's father said that Seth Rich told him that he received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Many other sources have published it.

"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."

reference: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.c5b01406666e

and on CNN:

"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"

reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html

Do you believe that all those sources were altered too? StreetSign (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's so significant that it should be added to the article, other sources will comment on it. If nobody else cares enough about this Daily Mail interview to talk about it, then there's no point putting it in the article, reliable or not. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of a "deliberate deception" is a personal attack and is prohibited by policy. I might also point out that you, yourself admitted that it was an exclusive video. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking only to the context of whether or not the source can be used and not to content issues of undue weight, the source in question is Seth Rich's father, not the Daily Mail. It is a

Am I missing something? We shouldn't use the DM, we should be using the Washington Post and CNN. @StreetSign:, if you knew that those other sources existed before you posted here, why are you arguing we should use the DM? From what you've said, it appears that you are here not to get the text added to an article, but to get the DM used as a source. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on who OP should or shouldn't cite; I'm not involved in the content in the article and have no desire to be. The original question was whether or not they can use the Daily Mail's video as a source and it's my opinion that they can, in a limited way, as explained above. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I have no interest in DM at all. And I have no interest in conspiracy theories. I did notice that the Seth Rich article did not contain any mention of the job offer from the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though his father spoke about it on more than one occasion with reporters, and considered it significant in some way. I posted on the Seth Rich Talk page, and was immediately accused of supporting conspiracy theories. Someone eventually even deleted my posts and those of everyone who responded. At no time did I change the actual Seth Rich article. I was informed that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC

And after reading it I concluded that an exception was a possibility. Once again, I don't care about DM at all. I did not even know DM existed. The video itself is clearly reliable, contrary to the claim by MjolnirPants above. The video, as pointed out in another reply above, a Primary source, so it should not be excluded.

I do understand that editors do not want to promote a conspiracy theory. Neither do I. But it does not seem right to suppress the job offer on that basis. There are many examples on WP, notably the Lee Oswald article as one example, where some facts are seized upon by conspiracy theorists, but they belong in the article anyway, because they are facts that contribute to understanding the background of the story. I don't think that we want to engage in anything equivalent to editing Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin. Seth Rich's father made these statements. They have been reported. They have been deliberately excluded from the Seth Rich article, using a variety of weak excuses. The authentic nature of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence, and it is independently supported by similar statements made by the father to WashingtonPost.

"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later in the video) "He had just found out that they wanted him."StreetSign (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

But in fact you are promoting the conspiracy theory, in your continued pushing of this topic. "Our son had a job offer at the Clinton campaign" is a small factoid, a minor detail of Seth Rich's tragically short life. It would be given no life or credence at all if it were not for the right-wing conspiracy theorists who seized upon it as a reason for his murder. There is literally no other reason to mention it, outside of the context of the whisper campaign. This is strikingly similar to those voices who pushed a few months ago mention that "Heather Heyer's mother said her daughter died of a heart attack" in the Unite the Right rally article. There's no cause to highlight that, other than to further the right-wing talking points that questioned whether the vehicular ramming caused her death. TheValeyard (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it was right-wing or seized upon by conspiracy theorists, what matters is if is mentioned by the reliable sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you rather smashingly failed to get the point. Seth Rich's watchband was torn in the incident, his girlfriend's name is Kelsey, whom he met at a polling firm, and Seth also Seth attended a fraternity brother's wedding the summer before. We as editors discern what is notable, what is trivial, and what is

undue, the sort of disucssion that usually does, and in this case did, take place at the article talk page. The consensus was that who Seth Rich was going to work for is trivial, except for the conspracisists. TheValeyard (talk

) 23:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see you complaining that the bike rack (already in the article) is trivial. StreetSign (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when WP:SETHRICH'SFATHER is no longer a red link. TheValeyard (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:INCLUDEEVERYTHINGSETHRICHSFATHERDEEMSIMPORTANT? (SCNR) Regards SoWhy 11:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We can easily differentiate between a documented, published fact and a conspiracy theory. The fact belongs in the article. The conspiracy theories do not. Attempting to repeatedly suppress the fact with obstructive tactics is wrong. StreetSign (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me try and explain something to you: It doesnt matter if you think it is wrong or right, if the editorial consensus for an article decides that something shouldnt be in the article, it doesnt go in. It could be 100% fully sourced to a reliable secondary source in a cast iron publication - if the consensus is that the information is

WP:UNDUE and should not be in the article, then it doesnt go in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 02:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That does describe the situation more accurately than the excuses that were given by other people. We have documented proof (including a video, and published accounts on CNN and WashingtonPost) that Seth Rich's father said "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." but there are a relatively few editors who have taken control of the article and will not permit it to be in writing on Wikipedia. They label anyone who wants to publish the fact a "conspiracy theorist". They will eventually be overruled. They will not be able to keep Nikolai Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs StreetSign (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So I am a little unclear about whether the Seamount Catalog at Earth.ref is a reliable source. There are some parts of the website that suggest it's usergenerated, others which suggest it is not. I am only interested in the coordinates for individual seamounts (such as the ones here), which I need for the article I am drafting at User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Musicians Seamounts - the current coordinates are too approximate/rounded for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I cant't tell whether it's user-generated, but even if it is the site is run by scientists from Scripps so there's expert oversight. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reliability of the website

Can this Buzzfeed News article[26] be used as a source for the following text?:

• Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers. The organization has a $10 million annual budget, of which it spends more than 40% on marketing.

Another editor disputes that Buzzfeed News is

This is an opinion article by Joseph Bernstein, not a news article. A better source is clearly needed. If that information is true, it needs to be supported by RELIABLE secondary sources, such as BBC, New York Times, Reuters, etc. Not "buzzfeed".--יניב הורון (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The author's description is "BuzzFeed News Reporter" and "senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News". There's nothing to suggest that this particular article is an opinion piece.

talk

) 13:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Phrases like "And yet the Donald-sized lacuna in PragerU feels weird and denial-ish." are not signs of objective reporting but an opinion piece (From what I see, Buzzfeed has no subheader to distinguish between news and opinion, so we have to make judgement calls). Buzzfeed, while nominally an RS (but nowhere near the equivalence of NYTimes), should not be the sole source for controversial statements, and searching around, while Buzzfeed is not alone in the claim about Wilks funding PragerU, the few other sites reporting it are even less of an RS, so it definitely should be handled carefully. In this case, I would insert "According to Buzzfeed, much of PragerU's early funding came from..." to at least avoid stating it in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wilks information can also be sources to Mother Jones at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/ through https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/ , and allegedly (I'm not going to do the work) through the underlying documents (990s, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) which are filed publicly by the Heavenly Father’s Foundation and the Thirteen Foundation. Carte Rouge (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a surprisingly good article for buzzfeed, and the Mother Jones and Rewire.News articles are more than enough to demonstrate the info is reliable and due. --

talk

) 15:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that we can state "According to Buzzfeed.... " in order to make it clear it's an opinion piece, and to avoid placing a notable (and usable) statement of opinion in wikivoice. loupgarous (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, Rewire's article mentioned above did go to the effort of looking at the public tax documents to identify how much Wilks' organizations put towards PragerU. I don't know how much we consider Rewire a RS (I've not seen it until this week, when it came up when I was searching for details on a current SCOTUS case), but Mother Jones (generally a RS) pointed to them. I would still include the source that did the work in the statement in question. (Eg "According to research by Rewire, much of PragerU's early funding ..." ) --Masem (t) 12:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- the byline is to "Joseph Bernstein, BuzzFeed News Reporter". This is clearly news reporting, not an opinion column. I would treat BuzzFeed News as reliable in this case. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This looks much like a solid news article. Note that "told BuzzFeed News" is repeated eleven times. Buzzfeed news articles are usually okay and quickly skimming through this article I saw nothing alarming.

But the sentence "Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers." is clearly problematic because it is pulled from the source. The sentence must be inside quotation marks, and should be

Partly a NPOV issue, this has RS implications as well. At present we use Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's writings as a source in over 100 articles (and we might have attributed views (sourced via other sources) beyond that) - source search. In particular I would like to point out the following illustrative examples:

1. 1951 Mokotów Prison execution - used to source The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968. (beyond the lack of context of 1968, most other sources say Piotr Śmietański died the same year, in 1951 died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950) - it seems this is also the source for him being a "Polish Jew" (in the cats of Piotr Śmietański) which does seems to appear elsewhere (including the Polish Wikipedia or this Polish article and based on his name (Piotr (Peter) is not a name Jews of the period would used (Saint Peter
   not being a Jewish favorite)... Nor does Śmietański seem Jewish or his father's name Władysław, his mother Anna could be) and WWII bio outside of the ghetto do not seem likely (nor sourced beyond the 1968 Israel blurb).
2. West Polesian microlanguage
   - Its composition is said to be 40 percent Ukrainian, 5 percent Belarusian, 5 percent Polish, and 50 percent Polesian. I'll note that the Russian Wikipedia (and sourcing there) disagrees with this (the existence of Polesian itself seems to be contested by some).
3. Polish Operation of the NKVD - framing the communist action as an ethnic genocide. e.g. The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish, It is also the largest killing of ethnic Poles in history, outside any armed conflict. in the lede. He is also used attributed to refer to this as a genocide.
4. The Holocaust in Russia (also in Jewish partisans) - sourcing In October 1943, 600 Jewish and Russian prisoners attempted an escape at the Sobibór extermination camp. About 60 survived and joined the Belarusian partisans. In Eastern Europe, many Jews joined the ranks of the Soviet partisans: throughout the war, they faced antisemitism and discrimination from the Soviets and some Jewish partisans were killed, but over time, many of the Jewish partisan groups were absorbed into the command structure of the much larger Soviet partisan movement.
5. Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 - attributed (but without a proper description of who Chodakiewicz is) statements that Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz estimates that in the first years after the war, the Jewish denunciations and direct involvement in the pro-Soviet wave of terror, resulted in the killing of approximately 3,500 to 6,500 non-Jewish Poles including members of the Home Army and National Armed Forces. in contrast to In "After the Holocaust," Chodakiewicz states: "In sum, probably a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 700 Jews and persons of Jewish origin perished in Poland from July 1944 to January 1947.".... unattributed use: Many Jews did not wish to remain where their previously large communities in Poland had been decimated by the German occupation; many fled the imposition of the Soviet backed political regime which persecuted the bourgeoisie and religion, including Judaism; many aimed to pursue the Zionist objectives in Palestine..
6. Przytyk pogrom - in which our account is quite different from the account in some other Wikipedias as well as in This Day in Jewish History 1936: Pogrom Erupts in Przytyk, for Which Jews Would Be Blamed or Encyclopedia Judaica: Przytyk, Poland (in which the subsequent Polish judicial actions are framed as a travesty of justice, in which the victims were persecuted for defending themselves). Significant portions of the article are sourced to Chodakiewicz, and a significant portion of the text is attributed to him (without context beyond "historian"). He is also used unattributed - Peasants who broke the boycott were beaten; Jews offering their services in the surrounding villages were also physically attacked. and a few others.

As to why such use might be troubling, particularly without context - Marek Jan Chodakiewicz has been called out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2009 and in 2017, as well by Never Again Poland and Hope not Hate 2017 Hope Not Hate on Chodakiewicz. Chodakiewicz's activities have been criticized on two separate fronts:

1. Political activities (mainly in Polish) - Chodakiewicz is a frequent media commentator and writes in a number of (understatement) right-wing Polish media outlets, as well as appearing in political rallies. For instance at a
   The Social Contract Press event.[34][35]
   .
2. Writing on history and geopolitics (mainly in English). His work has been sharply criticized by a large number of scholars, who note that he "represent the "most extreme spectrum" in "contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing".[1] Some reviewers have said that "intellectually and morally unacceptable interpretations", being part of a "ethno-nationalist historiography" trend that promotes "an image of Poland as only heroic, suffering, noble, and innocent".^[2] He has been criticized for rejection Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom.^[3] Laurence Weinbaum has compared this to pseudo-scholarly screeds.^[4] Historian Jan T. Gross said that "The guy is an ideologist of the radical right, I don't have any doubts that he's anti-Semitic."^[5][6][7] While Polish-Canadian historian Piotr Wróbel said that "he would never use a phrase or adjective that would clearly identify him as an anti-Semite", but "There is no doubt whatsoever that he doesn't like the Jews.".^[5] While he does receive some praise - it is for the most part limited to certain Polish circles.

While mentioned briefly in previous RSN discussions (e.g. here in the context of whether citing an unreliable source would make it reliable), Chodakiewicz has not been discussed as a source previously here to the best of my knowledge. What would be the appropriate use of Chodakiewicz on the English Wikipedia?Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Corrected Smietanski's date of death.(per [36], [37], [38]).Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Chodakiewicz appears to be taking a strong position. So do many historians. Throwing out a historian because he has a strong position would set the wrong precedent for Wikipedia. Compare say the famous British historian
  WP:KETTLE. -Chumchum7 (talk
  ) 12:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  I did not make his national identity an issue (for the avoidance of doubt - it is not an issue in my mind). I did present the issues raised by a few organizations (SPLC, HopeNotHate, NeverAgain) and notable historians in relation to his Political activity (which happens to be in Poland and mainly in Polish - and I don't think the SPLC (et al.) picked up on this because this was in Polish - this probably would've been a red flag for them in any language) and historical research (in English).Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I can confirm that the above claims are largely falsified. For example the claim that "in 2017 he wrote about genocide against whites and South Africa.[14][15]" is absolutely false, in fact Chodakiewicz writes "there isn't a genocide against whites in South Africa""Ludobójstwo jeszcze to nie jest". So this claim is absolutely false.Icewhiz was informed about this already[39], therefore I am quite surprise he repeats this falsification. Other claims are also largely false or misleading. For example he doesn't write that Obama is a muslim, or communist. He does write he was born to muslim father, and he associated with radical left in his youth.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• For the record, I am citing the SPLC: That seemed particularly obvious in July 2008, when he wrote in Najwyzszy Czas! about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who he claimed was at one time a Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists whose mother was a "feminist, social-liberal, hippie and a fan of F.D. Roosevelt." [40], In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. The term “white genocide” is a common white nationalist trope, with many pointing to South Africa and falsely claiming that white people are systematically massacred by people of color.[41].Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You were already informed that Chodkiewicz states there is no genocide in South Africa. His article states clearly that there is no genocide. Why are you repeating a false claim that can be easily confirmed to be false by quoting what he writes? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment

As to the beginning of the statement by Icewhiz, it seems that a large part of it is strange opposition to describing Soviet crimes and atrocities, I am afraid that seems to indicate a very strong POV. It is widely known that Soviets engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide against Polish population. Sourcing information about this is not something controversial as Icewhiz alledged.Is Icewhiz disputing that NKVD and Soviets conducted ethnic genocide against Poles?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz thank you for the clarification. My rationale above remains unchanged. For the record, I'm not here to defend Chodakiewicz and he happens to be one of the several historians who I would be rather cautious about. If the SPLC has a view on Chodakiewicz, it's reasonable to accurately include that view when he is mentioned as an authority in our articles. In principle I would support you adding such balancing content, and I would need to see how it's phrased on a case-by-case basis.
• It has been alleged by sources that Chodakiewicz has a problem with certain ethnic groups. You have been very gracious in apologizing for inadvertently appearing on one occasion to have made a sweeping statement about an ethnicity yourself [42] . There was no need to apologize to me personally as my comment was purely a signpost about community standards.
• To provide what I hope you will take as helpful feedback, I did perceive something in the phrasing of this filing that seemed to indicate that part of your problem with Chodakiewicz is in his ethnicity, as if that had any bearing on his reliability as a source. At least one other editor, Volunteer Marek, has noticed you doing this elsewhere. So my perception may be because this filing appears to be part of a wider disagreement that you are in, which is reminiscent of the early stages of various ARBEE conflicts of the past, several of which I'm a veteran of, some of which ended up with permanent user bans. If administrators eventually have to get involved in the wider disagreement, everyone's conduct is on the record. So now is a time to take stock.
• Don't take the
  personal attack
  . You might be on a noble mission, and it might be the right time to have a think about whether the way in which that mission is being pursued could eventually get you into trouble.
• Finally, I am grateful for your kind mention of my work at
  Jedwabne Pogrom [44] - which in the first place is thanks to you very rightly raising the issue of bias in that article. -Chumchum7 (talk
  ) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Any historian who writes about historical times such as these yet never raises anyone else's hackles must be a very boring and lazy historian. It can be said that Chodkiewicz's writing upsets quite a few people, but that is not by itself a reason to exclude him. The opinion of organizations like SPLC that are not historical experts is especially irrelevant (but with due care could be mentioned in the historian's own article). Where Chodkiewicz disagrees with other experts about a historical event, we can give both opinions in conformity with NPOV. Zero^talk 23:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally Piotr Skrzynecki is an example of a halakhicly-Jewish Pole called Piotr. Such usage in mixed or secularized families was not unusual. Also, the surname Śmietański is indeed Jewish; see it and several slight variations in this list. I have no information about this particular Śmietański, just that the argument against him being Jewish is very weak. Zero^talk 00:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Point taken on Jewishness and mixed families - his alleged immigration in 1968 is contradicted by most sources stating he died in 1951. I have not located a source (beyond Chodakiewicz's 1968 Israel claim) that he was Jewish - though it is possible there is one out there.Icewhiz (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Did a bit more digging. Seems he died of tuberculosis in the prior year, on 23 Feb 1950.IPN, Polish Journal article, Polish newspaper, making his participation in a 1 March 1950 execution unlikely. The Polish Wikipedia (did not assess beyond this) lists Aleksander Drej as the executioner in this 1951 execution. Chodakiewicz's The claim of a 1968 emigration were made in are source on-wiki to his blog on salon24.pl Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) modified per re-reading of the source and MyMoloboaccount's comments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Another falsification I am afraid.Chodkiewicz doesn't write that he emigrated in 1968.In his blog post he states that he doesn't know what Śmietański fate was" Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?""Interesting for example what was the fate of people like executioner of Mokotow Piotr Smietanski". Rest of the blog post btw describes the persecution Jews suffered from Soviets/Communists. I am worried that each time I check your source it turns out to say something else that you claim, and your statements turn out to be false or misleading.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not make the claim originally. It was made, but some other editor(s), on

1951 Mokotów Prison execution The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.. And also on: Piotr Śmietański According to Chodakiewicz, he emigrated from Poland in 1968 to Israel, but other historians disagree.. That the text presently main-space on enwiki - which is currently supported by this inline citation. I'll note that the "Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?" question appears in a new paragraph immediately after Około 20 tysięcy osób pochodzenia żydowskiego zdecydowało się na wyjazd za granicę. Nie ma jeszcze szczegółowych badań profilu tej grupy, ale wydaje się, że wielu z nich to zwykli ludzie. Mała część marcowej emigracji to SB-becy: kilkaset osób związanych było z aparatem terroru. (20,000 people of Jewish origin decided to go abroad ... Most ordinary, a few hundred associated with SB's terror apparatus). The question would seem to be tied to the immediately preceding passage - however I agree this is inappropriate use of the source.Icewhiz (talk

) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

See here.

Also here; simply typing the name of a pseudoscience conspiracy theory into Google gets three results from the Express. Serendi^podous 08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No opinion one way or the other, yet, but your links only provide that the Express talks about conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories and is well trafficked. I was unaware that the Express was being treated anywhere as a reliable source to begin with. Has this been an issue? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

They don't just talk about it; the leading headlines feed into the paranoia surrounding the supposed theories. Serendi^podous 10:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that we should not use any of the UK tabloids as RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Trinity Mirror has just purchased the DE so it might be best to see how the buyout impacts on the content. Betty Logan (talk
  ) 11:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• As I've said before: The unusual step of taking a formal RFC to produce a concrete finding that the Daily Mail is essentially always unreliable outside of being cited for opinion was unique to its particular case. The Daily Mail is definitely not the worst thing people have tried to cite in Wikipedia (not by a long shot); in fact, the reason it required an RFC and a formal decision was because it was exactly on the border where some people would constantly remove it on sight, while others thought it was usable. If a source is obviously unusable to virtually everyone, there's usually no need for an RFC - you can just remove it, go to
  WP:RSN if people object." --Aquillion (talk
  ) 00:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And Daily Express is also known for their nonsense fear mongering as well. I don’t really think it’s reliable honestly if you ask me. —LovelyGirl7 talk 21:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Mail, Express, News ... Anybody wanting to source stuff to these tabloids is either up to no good or utterly
  talk
  ) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Ditto the Sun and the Mirror. Unreliable tabloids. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with much of the above, particularly comments from Aquillion. We should lean against its inclusion as a RS with the understanding that there may be an exception from time to time depending on the situation. Betty's comments surrounding a recent change of ownership also has the potential – even if it is a remote possibility – that the publisher's content quality could improve over time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The reason for the Daily Mail issue is that over an extended period a lot of time and effort went into explaining why the Daily Mail was a terrible source for almost all its modern (rather than historic) uses. It was far and away the worst of tabloid journalism - and went beyond tabloid journalism into outright fabrication of interviews etc. That is why the Daily Mail was singled out. The Express, mirror and other tabloids etc are examples of variable reliability tabloid journalism, but they are not close to approaching the level the Daily Mail was at, both in terms of unreliability and time wasted here on ENWP. As Aquillion points out, if a source is unusable to virtually everyone - standard editorial consensus will usually mean its not allowed. If you want to cut down on the use of tabloid journalism in articles and biographies, hold an RFC to alter the various policies and guidelines to prohibit it (WP:RS, WP:BLP etc would be a good start). Personally I would get right behind any amendment to BLP that disallowed material based solely on tabloid journalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Source: http://www.thearda.com/learningcenter/religiondictionary.asp#F
• Article content: "Faith healing is the practice of prayer and gestures (such as laying on of hands) that are claimed can elicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing, especially the Christian practice."
• Discussion: [45]

Discussion

The issue is whether thearda.com is a reliable source? It's moot. Several definitely reliable sources will also provide similar definitions. Here is Oxford Dictionaries: faith healing; American Heritage Dictionary faith healing. These dictionaries do not say "especially Christian" or specifically refer to laying on hands. Are they necessary to your purposes? In my search, I also found an article that appeared in Science, which is the second-most prestigious science journal in the anglosphere: "The Science of Faith Healing" Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is not if the definition is apt; it's whether the source is good (for the purposes of adhering to

talk

) 22:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

To anyone who might be interested, there is an open request for comments which relates to reliable sources and categorising faith healing as a pseudoscience that people might like to visit. This follows a previous request for comments on the same issue that was held some time ago.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"thearda.com" is simply the website of the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). They are an online information source, collecting data about American and international religion. "The archive now includes both American and international collections as well as features for educators, journalists, religious congregations, and researchers." It is not an independent organization. It is currently co-funded and effectively owned by:

• Lilly Endowment. A "private philanthropic foundation" with headquarters in Indianapolis. They support and fund studies in Christianity and theology, though they do not seem to be affiliated to any particular version of Christianity.
• The John Templeton Foundation. A "philanthropic organization" with headquarters in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. They fund research in religious studies, various sciences, and (recently) genetics. Officially they are non-denominational in questions of religion. Unofficially, the founder supported Christian fundamentalism, the Foundation is politically conservative, with long-running ties to the Cato Institute, and has been repeatedly accused of the biased nature of the research it funds ("research toward religion-friendly conclusions"). Interestingly, it is also a vocal critic and opponent of the intelligent design movement, as a representative stated that "intelligent design and creationism were "blasphemous" to both Christians and scientists".
• The Pennsylvania State University. A university associated with the Commonwealth System of Higher Education and headquarters in State College, Pennsylvania. Formerly an agricultural science, it has expanded to a Public Ivy university: "successfully competing with the Ivy League schools in academic rigor... attracting superstar faculty and in competing for the best and brightest students of all races." "The 2016 Academic Ranking of World Universities ranks the university 77th among universities worldwide and 41st nationally." No outstanding religious affiliation. The University is otherwise known for various discrimination cases (mostly against African-Americans) and the Penn State child sex abuse scandal.
• Chapman University. A private, non-profit university with headquarters in Orange, California. Formerly known as the "California Christian College", it offers secular education on multiple subjects. However, their motto is "ὀ Χριστòς καì ἡ Ἐκκλησíα" (Greek for "Christ and Church") and they have a long-standing affiliation to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Protestants). Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to know if it can be reliable to use a Twitter account as a source for daily ratings. For example here was previously discussed about this, they did not give me an exact answer. An article where the source is used is

Hm, that's a tough one. My first instinct is to say that

Nielsen ratings. Do they exist somewhere on a website? It would be better to be able to link them to a website rather than Twitter, but I'm not seeing a huge issue with using the Tweets in the way you are doing. Marquardtika (talk

) 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If they are just Nielsen ratings then we can just cite them from a third party website. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If its nielson ratings from a nielson verified account then its a primary source and can be used accordingly. But if its nielson ratings there should be sources available other than twitter (do nielson not publish them elsewhere?). Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no more websites that publish ratings daily, only Produ does, I've got forums and blogspot where they publish the content, but I do not know if it's safe to use them as sources.--

talk

20:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If no other source publishes them daily, then does another source publish them at some larger interval? The main complaint about Twitter in this case is that the Tweets aren't always available long-term. Why not update the article using Twitter at first and then come back in a week or a month and add the slower source then? Then it won't matter if the Tweet is deleted later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• automobilesreview.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Is automobilesreview.com a reliable source? I recently noticed an editor whose behavior appears to be that of a spammer (Jody 99) adding links to this website. This raised my suspicions. Although Jody 99 has been reverted, there are multiple other uses of automobilesreview.com as a reference (not as a result of any obvious spamming, as far as I can tell). I'm not familiar enough with this subject area to know if this is an acceptable source to use as a reference of automobile news or not. Deli nk (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I need your advices about the following source: http://testwww.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/36/2/feature6.aspx.

Can I use the source to add some info to such sections as "early life" and "career" to George Conrades article?

Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that George Conrades is a living person so the

biographies of living people

rules are in force. That means the sources must be even more reliable than usual.

This link is from Chicago Booth Magazine which upon first glance appears to be perfectly good as a source, an official publication with standard editorial oversight (not a blog). However, this doesn't mean that it is reliable. Sometimes blogs disguise themselves as professional mags, and sometimes an amateur blogger is so dedicated that they look professional. This website lists its editorial staff but does not list their credentials[46]. However, a little more digging shows that it is affiliated with the the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. So it could be that this is a bunch of business students making an online mag just for fun (not reliable) but we have no reason to think it isn't a real university magazine (reliable).

I say the first round of due diligence is done. Go ahead and use this source for any non-controversial information that isn't contradicted by better sources. If anyone challenges, then some more digging might be in order. Has someone challenged it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

http://timepass.com.pk/sana-javed-biography-date-of-birth-age-height-weight-education-affair-scandal-drama-movie/ Plum3600 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No source is 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. A lot depends on context. So, to answer you question we need to know which WP article we are talking about, and what specific information the source is supporting (ie we need to know HOW the source is being used). Blueboar (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am hoping to determine whether or not musicinafrica.net is a reliable, verifiable source. Recently I have been involved at Mwasiti hoping to clean the article in the aftermath of a likely undisclosed paid editing case per [47]. The article is now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwasiti, and the discussion seems to be moving towards keep, though I support deletion. Most of the keep arguments center around the WP:NMUSIC policy that states that an artist with that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". However, the only source that makes such a claim about Mwasiti is [48] her profile on musicinafrica.net. I am concerned about the verifiablity of this site, as I have not been able to find further evidence of this claim anywhere else (with the exception of Wikipedia mirrors), and several of the other claims made by musicinafrica.net I was also not able to verify. I am also concerned about the disclaimer found at the bottom of the profile I cited, which reads "Disclaimer: Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes. If any track or video embedded on this platform violates any copyrights please inform us immediately and we will take it down. Please read our Terms of Use for more." These terms of use [49] and a descriptions page found on the website of the company that owns musicinafrica [50] show that the content on the website is user-generated, i.e created by accounts people have made, a major concern given that an editor on Wikipedia was paid to create an article of Mwasiti and could have planted information that would make the article subject notable per our guidelines. I believe all of the above calls into question the verifiability of the website and its content.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

On its masthead

On its subscriptions page, founder Jimmy Wales writes, "We are launching … We are a tiny operation today with big ambitions for the future. Your support will help us to improve the technology and hire more journalists."

At its Help & FAQs page, the introduction begins, "Since we launched the pilot site…."

Clearly, WikiTRIBUNE remains a tiny pilot site still in launch phase, with an admitted deficit in technology and journalists.

My question therefore is: Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as a

In my opinion, given its startup nature, limited resources, and unproven track record, WikiTRIBUNE should not be cited by editors within Wikipedia articles. We could proactively avoid disputed references by expressing a consensus to that effect. KalHolmann (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See the instructions at the top. Source, article, material the source is being used to support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end, here is the information formatted as you request.

• Links to past discussion of the source on this board: None found questioning reliability.
• Source: https://www.wikitribune.com/story/2018/02/20/cryptocurrencies/venezuela-launches-the-petro-the-worlds-first-sovereign-cryptocurrency/50555/
• Article: estcoin
• Content: "[…] after
  Petro
  .[4]"
• Diff: after Venezuela with its petro

Thanks for your guidance. KalHolmann (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In this specific case, I dont have a problem with the source. The main problem is the entire sentence is really one of synth - the first two sources dont say EST is the 2nd (mainly because at the time they were being research and written I dont think the Petro had been released) and the wikitribune source does not say the Petro was the first. Its source a + source b = conclusion c. Which we try to avoid. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In the case at hand, the "article" is written by one named and six unnamed contributors (that is, unnamed at the top of the story, and whose "names" do not indicate reportorial or journalistic expertise), and is constantly changeable. A source which can be changed at any moment, by unnamed persons, is clearly never a "reliable source" any more than Wikipedia is. The "comments" page has an interesting comment by a person who asks "I think an interesting story would be whether a US citizen would be breaking the law by buying this. ..." This clearly suggests that a person in some presumed control of the source used is specifically asking that his point of view or question be treated in the article. Sorry, but I fear I consider WT to not yet meet

Estcoin appears also to have major copyvio problems, alas. Collect (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like it falls under

WP:USERGENERATED because it is a user-generated website. Wikitribune may be as reliable as Wikipedia. We don't use Wikipedia articles as sources either. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no. Its a bit more complicated than that. Stories are generally written by staff writers then updated (I gather in a way akin to our pending changes) by contributors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:USERG, as currently written, allows the use of content from user-generated websites if it was written by credentialled members of the website's staff and not by anonymous contributors, so I guess the pre-updated version, if available, would be okay. If Wikitribune takes off, we might have to put together something specifically addressing whether and how to use it. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 13:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Given its Jimbo's baby, it might be worth asking him to lay out the exact editorial process for it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Like Wikipedia, WT contains a history tab for article which shows all revisions (e.g. [51]). Since all changes need to be approved by the editorial staff, it's less Wikipedia and more Citizendium. Imho, it should not be treated any differently than a regular newspaper that corrects itself when readers point out mistakes. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Are the people on the editorial staff credentialled? We do the same thing on Wikinews, and everyone there is an anonymous volunteer, as here.

If Wikitribune publishes first drafts with the expectation that there will be mistakes to be corrected, then yes it is different from a professionally published paper. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

As I understood it the idea was to include relevant updates, not publish riddled with mistakes to be corrected. eg a news item on a current event might be updated more quickly with new information, pictures etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The staff consists of credentialed journalists, like Peter Bale and Holly Brockwell and there is an editorial process. So basically a normal newspaper, with the added benefit of quicker updates and eventual corrections. Regards SoWhy 15:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiTribune is both new and a new kind of thing. It hasn't established a reputation yet. I could see giving it some kind of special status, classifying it as its own thing, at least for the first year or two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Is chartmasters.org a reliable source. I've been using it as a source on

Richard Hendricks (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for bringing this here. Text has been removed from articles

WP:SPS, as previously discussed in the talk page). Dbsseven (talk

) 19:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If a tweet is by an expert then yes it is RS. So the only question then becomes is he an expert?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The expertise of the Tweet author has already been discussed on the talk page [53][54] Dbsseven (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me but this is you just saying he is an expert, not what makes him a notable expert, what does his Wikipedia entry say?Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that is "me saying" anything. However, to be clear, I can find multiple sources who have published this same author, some the same publishers Objective3000 cites. [55][56][57] (And while their own WP article is a standard for the notability of expertise, I do not believe it is the standard for expertise.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim is: Ryan Shrout is the founder and lead analyst at Shrout Researchand the owner of PC Perspective.. But, Ryan Shrout, Shrout Research, and PC Perspective all appear to be missing from WP. If he's an RS, you'd think there would be something. O3000 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

And there are no WP articles for the authors of sources you cite Jordan Novet, joseph f kovar, ERIC DAVID, BRAD MOON, and wallace witkowski. Let's try to apply the same standard here. Dbsseven (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t use primary sources. I refed secondary sources that are in WP. O3000 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Is your argument then that these authors are experts when writing for these publications, but lose expertise when not? Either they are experts or they are not, IMO. (And I believe this is exactly what

WP:SPS states.) Dbsseven (talk

) 19:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read

WP:IRS. The sources I used are RS. They have reputations for fact checking. This is why we use secondary sources. O3000 (talk

) 19:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read

WP:SPS is a subset of that policy. Dbsseven (talk

) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen no other sources posted that agree with this tweet, and as for disingenuous, please let's keep this civil. O3000 (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RS stating AMD shares the position of the tweet [58][59]. Another source stating that other RS were interpreting [60]. If you disagree, that's fine. But I have brought these up before, so to say there are "no other sources" is to misrepresent the discussion. Dbsseven (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I misrepresented nothing. Your refs all agree with the original text that was removed. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Only if read selectively. Yes some cites say there was a change. But not all. And some reiterate AMD position of no change also. To state only half the story is an incomplete synthesis

WP:SYN. Again, I think we need to be clear what AMD said and what was said about AMD. Dbsseven (talk

) 19:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

All the RS say the position changed. But, you are going off topic. Is this two sentence tweet starting with "It seems" and suggesting other media are unfair to AMD, RS? O3000 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not all do. The tweet and [61] (and AMD itself). And according to

WP:PST 'analysis' is exactly what secondary source are expected to do. But on the issue at had the same source (tweet) is unequivocal about AMD's position. Dbsseven (talk

) 19:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your source says in its first sentence: Advanced Micro Devices Inc said on Thursday its microprocessors are susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw, days after saying its risk for one of them was “near zero”. How can you think that means there was no change in position? The same type of wording can be found in source after source. It’s why the markets were in turmoil. The two sentence tweet you want to use alludes to all the sources being wrong. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Because if you read the second sentence it says In a subsequent statement Thursday, AMD said there was “no change”... and the forth sentence But investors believed... (And markets have nothing to do with WP or the discussion here.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This appears to have gotten off topic. My point to include a statement saying "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y" can be well supported by multiple RS for both points. I believe this to be fair prose to build consensus around. 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would avoid using a Tweet by itself for a controversial statement, but RSes noticing a tweet would then be reasonable to point to and/or quote the tweet if it is considered relevant. This is even the case if the tweet is from a verified Twitter user and a known expert in said field; it's better to have RSes tell us why something is important when it comes off social media then make that judgement ourselves. Something uncontroversial, that's less a problem. --Masem (t) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Masem and Slatersteven for your input. Would you mind chiming in on the bigger picture, related question? I suggested the prose: "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y", and believe the cites clearly support both X and Y were stated. (In this case the tweet and other sources reiterate "AMD said Y".) Is this fair consensus language to maintain NPOV? Dbsseven (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's my read of the RSes quoting the tweet, agreeing with him. Seems properly neutral to give attribution ,etc. --Masem (t) 20:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Basically, all of the sources say that AMD changed their position (since they did). They use different words: changed, reversed, admitted, backtracked, etc. Yes, it's fine to add that AMD denied this. O3000 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay Objective3000 (and Masem if you like). How about this for firm consensus language "Some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." Dbsseven (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable. But, this is the wrong venue. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why unacceptable? You had no objection a moment ago. I literally replaced X with "this was a change in AMD's position" and Y with a quote from [62] Please explain. Dbsseven (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD changed their position. That's what the RS say. You want to add a denial, fine. Use the original text that was edit-warred out of the articles against WP guidelines, and add a denial. O3000 (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 I have not edited the Spectre article since January, and only a single edit. Your frustration of edit-warring is with someone else.

Combining the original text and new prose: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later released an optional firmware mitigation, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2." More agreeable to you? Dbsseven (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what happened. The timeline is wrong and some is weasely and misleading. "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD denied that there was any change in their position." O3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this, as to state "However..." is to suggest a contradiction. (Disputed by AMD and some sources.) Can you clearly state what was weasely? IMO, better to keep it factual and state what each source says, rather than interpret ourselves. How about: "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. When AMD later announced an optional firmware mitigation would be released, some sources said this was a change in AMD's position, while AMD disagreed saying it has never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2."@Masem: (or anybody else following), outside opinion? Dbsseven (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was a contradiction. A dramatic contradiction that caused billions in movement in the markets, making it notable. RS even stated that AMD would take advantage of the fact their chips weren't vulnerable to gain market share against Intel. A "fact" that turned out to be wrong. This was a very large event. AMD found they were vulnerable. They came out with an "updated" post and erased their original claim. Every respected source I've seen says it was a change. Maybe a few percent of RS that reported didn't report that there was a change. But, "some" is highly misleading. O3000 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It was only a contradiction if you read "near zero" as "absolute zero", which those in the know would tell you that is not true; anyone that says "absolutely zero vunerabilities" in computer-related terms is lying or speaking to marketing. That did scare investors hitting 4% of their stock price, but from a technical standpoint, AMD's not changed anything.--Masem (t) 21:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to add that there was a period of time for about half a day on Jan 11 when news reports published about AMD being affected by Specter 2, and AMD's clarification that "their position hadn't changed". Most good RSes talking about it either are reporting both sides, or mention "after this story was published, AMD issued this statement...", that I can find. I am 100% sure there are sources "stuck in amber" in that half-day window that do not include AMD's updated statement and thus make it appear AMD switched positions, but we should be looking at the larger picture of RSes, which do make it clear that AMD maintained they were at still "near zero risk", rather than take those fixed RSes that suggest otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reading the story from sources, here's how I see it: Specter is reported, AMD around Jan 3 makes a public statement that says there's a "near zero risk" that AMD chips are affected from Specter 2. Then around Jan 10 it is shown that Specter 2 can affect AMD chips. AMD's investors get wary and its stock drops. By Jan 11 AMD gave a statement that they are aware some AMD chips are vunerable to Specter 2, but then make sure after these press stories come out that they haven't changed their position on the "near zero risk". Which, from a technology standpoint, seems perfectly true- a statement of "near zero risk" is not a promise of 100% free, and they're still standing by the fact that AMD chips are still near zero risk of Specter 2, but they are working and making tools available to help protect users to try to move "near zero" to "zero". This is standard practice in the industry, and that's where the aforementioned Tweet is coming from. This makes the word "denied" a bit of a problem, because I'm not seeing AMD necessarily being challenged that they changed their view from RSes, just that the way stories on Jan 11-12 published about this made them issue the statement that they still maintained their position they were are near-zero risk. Likely published in regards to articles like this [63] (The "backtrack"). Eg [64] clearly shows AMD issued a statement after the first bunch of press stories went out.

To that end, I would take Objective's phrasing and rework it as: "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". --Masem (t) 21:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem That seems accurate and clearly spells out the details. I suppose walking through the nuances is the best way to keep NPOV. Works for me. Thank you. Dbsseven (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s the problem. There is no reason to believe the risk is any less with AMD than Intel or ARM chips. This is a difficult flaw to hack. But, it would have eventually been hacked and near-zero was misleading. Keep in mind that near-zero is infinitely higher than zero. When they made the original statement, AMD stock shot up and Intel sank as the statement was clearly made to suggest AMD chips were safer. Then AMD had to “update” their statement to say they were, in fact, vulnerable, which the markets had been led to believe was not true. RS quickly published new stories using various words to show a change in AMD’s position, with the resulting corrections in the market. Yes, AMD tried to say well, we didn’t say zero. But, they clearly suggested they were nearly invulnerable. And, this was false. This is why it was so heavily covered in the financial sources, as well as the tech sources. But, your text is closer. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD knew marketing and legalese speak. "Near zero" protected them from any liabilities should someone have tried to sue them "But you said...!" Were they manipulative given the position Intel was in? Probably. However, we as editors can't read too far into that. I'm trying to see sources that talk about the stock prices around this period, and it's clear Intel too a huge hit on Jan 3 and thereafter, while AMD had a small drop on the Jan 11 bit, but I see nothing at the current time suggesting that AMD's "near zero statement" was meant to cash in on Intel's probably on Jan 3. I'm not saying those exist, but without those, we can't presume AMD was doing anything malicious, even though anyone tech-savvy probably could see something along those lines here. --Masem (t) 22:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And, I've never suggested adding much of what I said above. I think we should just report what RS reported. RS overwhelming stated that there was a change in AMD's position. I've never had a problem with adding a denial. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm spot checking sources, but I'm not seeing an overwhelming number of sources saying it was a change, except for those that failed to add in what AMD said later, which I would never call a denial, but a maintain or clarification of what the said. --Masem (t) 22:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, obviously a source that didn't update isn't relevant. Any source that actually followed the story would have updated. Not sure what you're looking at. The top financial and tech sites all used words that meant change, usually in more stronger terms. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this sources in a search, can you provide some links? I am not seeing any normally reliable site immediately that has the late Jan 11 statement from AMD and still maintains that AMD "changed" (or any variation of that) their stance on their "near zero risk" statement, but this is also not something very easy to search on. --Masem (t) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

[65], [66], [67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72],[73] I can find more if you wish, but have to get some work done. The reversal was a huge story. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The first CNet one does not include the restatement from AMD that there was "no change", nor the ZDnet one, nor the CNR one, and the only one that really uses a "change" language seems to be the CNR one that calls it a backtracking. The CNBC one I don't see anything suggesting a change, nor the Fortune/Reuters story (those two I've seen). At best, this is why I think one can say something like "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. In response to media reports that felt AMD had reversed its previous statement, AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'". (emphasis is new from above). And to tie it back to what started this, it does appear other tech experts agree with AMD that they never changed position with respect to "near zero". The problem sorta becomes we had this burst of coverage around early Jan, but nothing else much about AMDs part in this (Intel, on the other hand, has class action lawsuits lined up the door), and so we can't read too much farther into what we reported them, which I feel my sentence above is about the most neutral, non-OR, accurate summary of the events. --Masem (t) 00:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that all sources don’t include the AMD claim about no change. I never asked for that claim to be included as it’s ridiculous. But, I’m OK with inclusion, although it’s embarrassing to AMD. Class action lawsuits are extremely common against deep pocket companies. They can be mentioned, but mean little and would mean a very long list over time. AMD did NOT have any fixes when they made their correcting statement. They weren’t close. Indeed, they stumbled badly in attempting rollouts of fixes (as did Intel and Microsoft). I don’t see any particular value in including these stumbles in the AMD and Intel articles. Maybe in the Spectre article. This is March and most PCs affected by all manufacturers are still not fixed. I don’t see where you come up with most tech experts agree with no change in position. Nearly every source says there was a change (well, because there was). O3000 (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that when I read all the stories, from Jan 11 onward, the stance in the long run seems to be taking AMD at their word - they did not change their statement about "near zero risk" they issues Jan 3. Only sources on Jan 11 make something that suggests AMD changed or backtracked, but that's why AMD released the statement on Jan 11 to be clear. Since we're not a newspaper, we summarize from the longer-term view. I agree we should recognize that some initially saw that as a change, but that AMD clarified it was not. --Masem (t) 02:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we please settle on a

consensus? It seems like we're going 'round in circles. Objective300, has noted they're "OK with inclusion". I believe Masem's proposed language covers all bases, perhaps adding something like "some commented that this was a change in AMD's position..." if necessary. I think this would address all issues. Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk

) 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am adamantly opposed to the word “some” as it is just plain wrong. All of the sources say AMD changed their position, using various verbs. This was an important event. Of course later stories weren’t talking about the changed position, because that part of the story was over and they were then talking about efforts to fix the problem. A problem that AMD originally suggested was Intel’s problem; not a problem of all manufactures using speculative execution techniques. O3000 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking through the sources you're providing, but it's definitely not "all" or "most" of them that suggest AMD changed position. Some did, no question, but it's hard to verify it was "many" or "all" sources from what you've provided as links. --Masem (t) 16:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If we're seriously being hung up by a single adjective, lets find another. "several" or "particular" both appear suitable as-well. Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I provided nine refs. One was before the AMD change, so it can’t have known AMD was going to change their statement. Of the other eight, seven indicate a change in AMD’s position, and the other uses fuzzier language which still indicates a change in how readers perceived the two statements. Of course the reason for this is that AMD admitted on the 11th to something they did not admit on the 3rd. Which was why the markets flailed. AMD changed their position as reported by the vast majority of RS. We should not be using weasely language. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I really don't see it that AMD was being accused of changing their stance. Instead, nearly all these stories revolve around the issue of the tech meaning of "near zero risk" (conservatively allowing for error) and the layman's take of "near zero risk" (that there should be no issues). The press took AMD's statement on the 3rd as the latter, and so reacted that way. But AMD and others reporting on the tech side are clear that the new Specter 2 vulnerability announcement wasn't conflicting with their previous "near zero" statement. Yes, the markets still reacted to the reporting, so ignoring how the media reported it is not appropriate, but we shouldn't take the tone that some used that AMD lied or changed position (at least factually). I'm find with saying "several sources claimed AMD changed their position on this Jan 11 announcement", as long as that is attributed. --Masem (t) 18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So there is no ambiguity, the current proposed prose (as I understand it) is: "AMD originally stated on January 3 that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD stated on January 11 that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. Several sources claimed AMD changed their position on this Jan 11 announcement. AMD maintained that it still held the position that AMD processors were at "near zero risk", but had 'defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat'" That works for me. Dbsseven (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The sources clearly show a change in AMD’s position. WP does not sweep news under the rug:

• AMD processors: Not as safe as you might have thought…. The real change in AMD's position is with GPZ Variant 2 (Branch Target Injection or Spectre). ZDNet
• AMD: Yes, Spectre does affect our processors. The chipmaker first said there would be "near zero" impact on its chips from one variant of a flaw that makes sensitive information vulnerable. Is it or isn't it? There was some confusion when news first hit last week that researchers had found serious flaws, called Spectre and Meltdown, in many of the chips that power computers and phones. Yes, chips from Intel and Arm were affected, but what about chips from AMD? AMD on Thursday put out a new statement that left no room for doubt. Each of the two variants of the design flaw called Spectre "is applicable to AMD processors," CNET
• On January 3, the chipmaker said AMD chips had a near-zero risk of being affected by one variant of the Spectre vulnerability. But on Thursday the statement said the variant "is applicable" to AMD chips.CNBC
• AMD Backtracks On 'Near Zero Risk' Processor Claims, Now Must Issue Updates To Combat Spectre. CRN
• AMD issues Spectre security patch despite initially claiming ‘near zero risk’ siliconANGLE
• AMD on Jan. 3 also said that its chips were vulnerable to one variant of the Spectre bug, but there was “near zero risk” from the second Spectre variant and vulnerability to the second variant “has not been demonstrated on AMD processors to date.” In Thursday’s statement, however, AMD said the second Spectre variant “is applicable to AMD” processors and that it would issue patches for its Ryzen and EPYC processors starting this week and older chips in the coming weeks. Fortune
• AMD posted a statement on Thursday admitting its CPUs are vulnerable to both Spectre variant 1 and Spectre variant 2. …AMD, on the other hand, played up the architectural differences between its CPUs and Intel’s. The company used wording like “near zero risk” that gave the impression all was clear. So while, Intel stock dropped as much as 9%, AMD stock enjoyed gains of up to 12% since the crisis first began. The Meltdown and Spectre effect may begin to level out now that AMD has come clean about Spectre Variant 2. InvestorPlace
• AMD shares slide as chip maker admits greater Spectre vulnerability. MarketWatch O3000 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• • "The company used wording like “near zero risk” that gave the impression all was clear." this quote here is exactly the problem I'm trying to talk about. No one in tech would take "near zero" to mean "all was clear", but investors did. But it was treated that way by the press at the time, so it should be noted that is what was claimed, but it would be bias to try to argue they changed their stance. We write it as a "He said, she said" situation to stay neutral. --Masem (t) 19:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That some number of sources described a "change" is not in dispute. This is stated in the currently proposed prose. "Several" makes it clear the number is greater than two but less than infinity. That "all" or "most" sources say this appears to go beyond the sources provided and needs additional sourcing. @Objective300: I thought you were "OK with inclusion" I don't see how quoting sources already cited is productive. How specifically is the current prose unsatisfactory? Dbsseven (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It’s not some. It’s most of the RS writing specific stories about the change. And it wasn’t just investors. There were stories that major tech companies were looking at alternatives to Intel. We are talking about a 12% increase in AMD stock and 9% decrease in Intel in the week between the first and corrected statements. Again, I’m not saying we should include the financial stuff, and I’m OK with adding AMD’s denial (although it’s embarrassing to AMD). And I’m not insisting on the words used by RS, like admitted, reversal, backtracking. But, this was a major story. AMD changed their position. That's a polite way to put it given the impact. There are easily enough RS to state this in Wikivoice, along with a denial. Otherwise, this is a whitewash of a major event. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no source to support that AMD's clarification on Jan 11 was a "denial". Even if one accepts that the sources state "AMD changed their position" (I don't think we can state that factually, we can say that was claimed by the media), none support the statement "AMD denied they changed position". "Maintained" or "Clarified", yes, but not "denied". --Masem (t) 20:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I'm not the one that suggested a denial be added. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 you did in-fact, suggest adding "denial". I agree with "Maintained" or "Clarified" also. Dbsseven (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That was an attempt at a compromise. I don't care if it's added. In any case, it wasn't a denial in their second statement. It was a denial that they had changed their position after so many sources called their change a change. O3000 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Well "denial" is clearly a controversial word here, so "maintained" or "clarified" might be better. And we still need to settle on an adjective for the number of sources suggesting "change". "All" or "most" are clearly disagreeable to consensus, what else might work? (It seems if we can settle on these two words, consensus might be achieved.) Dbsseven (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, at least one of the sources used the word denial. But again, I don't care. I was just throwing out a compromise. The word "some" is a non starter. It's nearly all. None of the words should be used. It should be stated in Wikivoice. O3000 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

In place of "some"/"all"/"nearly all"/"most" which are all clearly controversial what about "several" or "particular"? To describe AMD's response what about "maintained", "clarified", or "stated" (avoiding the controversial "denial")? (Or do you have other suggestions?) As for Wikivoice, the proposed language is built around "He said, she said" in order to stay neutral. Dbsseven (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but you misunderstand what happened in an event that caused, literally, billions of dollars of losses and gains based on a false statement. Seriously, if one “tech expert” consulting to a company says there is a “near zero” chance of a hack, that means they believe the chance will not occur and no action is required. If a major corporation states that there is a “near zero” chance of a security vulnerability for its hundreds of millions of chips, that means it won’t happen. If it does, they will be drowned in lawsuits. In this case, their “near zero” meant “it will absolutely happen”. Because, if you totally deny that a hack is possible, while other people are explaining exactly how to exploit the flaw, it will happen to the fools that believed the false claim. Look at the massive hacks against huge, trusted corporations, exposing hundreds of millions of folks whose personal information that have occurred over the last decade. It is wonderful that AMD eventually reversed this false claim and admitted that there was a flaw. Otherwise, so many folks would have been vulnerable to hacks, a major problem in today’s world. Seriously, this is a major embarrassment for AMD that they used to rocket their stock and sales. And, I’m not surprised that their new CEO (whom I respect and wish well) stumbled.

Now, everything I just said is OR – but that is allowed on TP. I am trying to explain why this is such a huge issue – and why so many RS have jumped on it and called it a change/reversal/backtrack/etc. I really am trying to be compromising. But, it appears that you want this swept under the rug. And, I’ll say again, RS/N is the wrong venue. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you are trying to be compromising. Can you please either provide a specific objection to the proposed language (exactly what words/phrases are objectionable and why), and/or propose language of your own incorporating the feedback of other editors? I hope this might allow us to move forward. Currently, the proposed text clearly includes "changed" and will cite RSs accordingly. (Acknowledging that a personal view of the situation is OR, but still believing this to be a valid basis for editorial decisions, is not in keeping with WP policies as I understand them.) Dbsseven (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, please

synthesis. Masem also explained the differences in technical versus layman's definitions of "near-zero". Also, please do not state I "want this swept under the rug", as this is incorrect. Dbsseven (talk

) 01:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I can’t be any more clear. The original text should be restored. And, in no way, shape, or form have I suggested inclusion of any SYNTH. Inn no way, shape or form have I gone against WP policies. The change in AMD’s position is well documented by RS and should be included as per

WP:WEIGHT. O3000 (talk

) 15:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Dbsseven that there is a bit of synth here. Lets presume that we take the stance that everyone and their brother called AMD out on changing their view and their clarification on Jan 11 was really a denial. (I don't think this is proper, but just setting this up). So now you seem to be arguing that AMD manipulated the financial markets with this duplicity. That is original research. I do agree that AMD's statements were all worded as carefully as possible as to appear to minimize any financial impact on them, make Intel's position look back, and future-proof themselves from any legal challenges. That's standard business practices in a competitive market space - it can seem sleazy and manipulative. However, to make anything like that connection, that AMD did this purposely, requires a source, and we simply do not seem to have a source for that, that I can find. Well after Jan 11, no one seems to be up in arms about how AMD's statements came out. That's why its necessary to understand that what happened on one specific day is not as important as the long-term stance, which is basically what Dbsseven has been suggesting. --Masem (t) 16:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don’t know what you are referring to. First, I NEVER said that the Jan. 11 statement was a denial. After RS called the AMD a change in position on the 11th, AMD denied this. Second, I NEVER suggested anything about markets be included. Please concentrate on what I actually suggest. The original text, which I believe should be restored, does not say the Jan 11 statement was a denial or mention markets. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

consensus can change. Given the edit history, it is clear other editors object to the previous language. Accordingly, it is appropriate to find new consensus language. Dbsseven (talk

) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What you want does not follow

WP:WEIGHT. We follow the majority of RS. O3000 (talk

) 17:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It has been suggested is to include "AMD maintained that it still..." That AMD said this is in some of the same RSs you cite. Therefore, I do not see this as a problem of

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.) Dbsseven (talk

) 17:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I have no problem with adding that AMD maintained this was not a change in position, even though it's false. Making any suggestion that there is near zero risk is absolutely not something that WP should include as the risk is real. And, once again, I said the original text should be restored. It does not use the words some or all. It was well written text that follows the guidelines and was edit-warred out against guidelines.O3000 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It is very clear you'd like the original text, but other editors object so a

new consensus need to be found. I don't believe the suggested prose suggests anything. It simply states verifiable facts that "on Jan 11 AMD stated... sources said "changed"... AMD maintained..." To write "someone said X" is verifiable and does not endorse their viewpoint, keeping a NPOV. To state "X is true, though AMD maintained..." is not in keeping with NPOV or verifiable. Dbsseven (talk

) 18:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

AMD maintained WHAT? And stop claiming i am trying to introduce MY POV. That is nonsense. The original text is NPOV. It is straight out of the preponderance of RS. 19:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

Multiple editors have

WP:LISTEN and work with other editors to find a NEW consensus. Dbsseven (talk

) 13:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying multiple editors as if there are ten. And this isn’t even the right forum. And, stop telling me to listen. My hearing is just fine. And the original text, which I proposed be restored, doesn’t use the words most or all. You have run out of arguments and aren’t even trying to fit the guidelines. Tell me what is wrong with the original text? It is well documented by RS, is NPOV, is succinct, and is exactly what actually happened. O3000 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The old text is an incomplete synthesis of the facts from RS, and therefore not NPOV. This is what multiple editors have pointed out. No single editor

The old text is straight out of RS. There is ZERO SYNTH. Again, you keep saying multiple editors. What other editor has said the original text is SYNTH? I'm not talking about financial markets, which I have NEVER suggested be added. You continue to argue that I want text included that I do not want added. How can we get anywhere when you keep making false statements about what I propose? I propose, for the nth time, the original text be restored. There is no SYNTH in that text. O3000 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The old text may an improper synth if it intentionally excludes new or clarifying information (AMD's statement of it's position). It may have been a correct synth when written, but no longer. Dbsseven (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point, Ihave no idea what you are talking about. YOU are the one demanding exclusion of ANYTHING that is in the least negative about AMD. I am trying to include. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The blue-check means its a verified account, so the person is 100% who they claim to be. The question is - Is Ryan Sprout himself a reliable primary source? DarkKnight2149 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe he is in a subject area that caused billions of financial moves in a couple weeks. But, even if he is, it’s a silly tweet saying that it “seems” that those he likely considers competitors have some ulterior motives. It really explains nothing, provides zero evidence of anything, provides no sources or rationale. Looks like just an offhand tweet. It pales in comparison to top financial and tech articles.

WP:WEIGHT O3000 (talk

) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The financial consequences are irrelevant to WP editorial decisions, at issue is "AMD said X". A discussion financial consequences could be included in a separate part of the Spectre article but are off topic here. (And yet the author is also published on the same financial publishers Objective3000 cites, CNBC and Marketwatch. [74][75] So expertise in the intersection of technology and finance can certainly be discussed.) Nevertheless, the tweet is unequivocal of AMD's technological position, which is the relevant topic here. And not the only cite of this, also. Dbsseven (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Browsing through this all, I think Masem's approach is the best to take here. I think you guys should go with that and move on to something else. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, we have an underused facility in Mediawiki to list sites that are generally reliable sources and low risk for spam. The advantage is that if you are an IP or have a new account you have to do a capcha each time you add an external link, unless you link to a site on that list. Some suggestions of reliable sources we can add to the list are at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#more_links but more input would be welcome and the regulars here are probably the best to give it. ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'd support adding major national papers of anglophone regions: i.e. the three you mentioned, probably the Telegraph, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail, The Hindu, and the Australian or New Zealand equivalents (I'm not as up on my press from that area of the world.) The idea being that a national paper of record or its equivalent/competitors is almost always going to be a reliable source and very unlikely to be used by spambots, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Recently on the National Rifle Association article this text "The NRA was founded to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." It did not pursue a gun rights agenda until 1934, which places it behind the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for oldest civil rights organization." was inserted sourced to Salon and Tampa Bay Times here.

The issue seems to be the Salon source used here is stated as a re-post from Media Matters Blog section here with no changes at all to the Media Matters article. The Tampa Bay Times article here is part of their "The Buzz" section, which they list under their blog section here. Are those sources acceptable for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice or should they be attributed as the sources opinions? PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(Involved editor) I don't think the TBTimes is reliable for the claim being made because the article doesn't address the question. The TBTimes article isn't about which is the oldest civil rights organization. Instead it is about an unrelated NRA topic. In the article the NAACP's opposition to a teachers with guns plan is mentioned. The article introduces the NAACP as the oldest civil rights organization but doesn't address why or state that it's older than the NRA (as a civil rights group etc). I argue it is no more a RS for the way its being used than an unrelated article about the NAACP, which never mentions the NRA, would be. Springee (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The flaw in that reasoning is that the Tampa bay Times states as a fact "The NAACP, the nation's oldest civil rights organization". They are not making a comparative statement, or expressing an opinion. They are stating a fact. The question then is: does the Tampa Bay Times have a reputation for fact checking? well, as a matter of fact, they do: PolitiFact.- MrX 🖋 03:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes their News side is certainly a RS, this is a blog we are talking about. PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A specialty claim should not be supported by a passing statement even if the source is generally reliable. They aren't stating it as a fact, they are stating it as a way to introduce the NAACP. Its the same as an off hand mention. Such a mention is evidence that people acknowledge the claim/view it's not reliable as proof. In academic publications such oblique citations are rightly discouraged. As an example, many reliable source will refer to the Ford Pinto Memo as a memo containing Ford's cost benefit analysis used to trade production costs for lawsuit payouts. Lot's of sources say that and few would question a source that included the claim in passing. It's also a claim that didn't stand up to scrutiny. In this case the TBTimes simply states it in passing and moves on. If we are going to write about the claim then we need sources that talk about the claim. Springee (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Flip it. On the bottom of the NRA homepage we find the first sentence "The National Rifle Association is America's longest-standing civil rights organization." There are a number of RS that say this is a false claim. Can you supply RS independant from the NRA that support this claim? And why is it when you can't sufficently push your pro NRA pro gun POV on the article you come running to this board? You have noticed that the world is noticing this whitewashing effort? [76] Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As PackMecEng pointed out, the The Buzz from TBTimes does have "blog" in the URL, but it certainly isn't the sort of self-published blog that would be prohibited under

WP:NEWSBLOG if we consider it to be a blog at all. –dlthewave ☎

04:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I do agree it meets the higher bar of newsblog vs just blog, but that it should not be used as an unattributed statement of fact. If we were to use either of these sources they should need in text attribution to the writer and not in Wiki's voice. PackMecEng (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• This all comes down to how one defines “oldest”... do you go by the year of organizational founding or the year of first taking an advocational stance on an issue? Which source is “correct” depends on the definition used. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We will use whichever definition is used by reliable sources. If different RS use different definitions, then we will cover both. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not taking sides on which organization is the oldest civil rights organization. It's disputed. We just need to present the different views and let the readers decide.- MrX 🖋 12:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• No - two blogs not best sources nor depth of consideration - In the context of the phrase as historical data neither is suitable as RS, the cited items are flawed as sources due to lack of focus and content for the topic, and both have a poor standing in the context of phrasing something as fact in WP voice. The Buzz article is an unrelated piece from a curated
  WP:BESTSOURCES on the topic -- one could easily find information from more respectable sources such as the BBC, or or NPR, or Chicago Tribune; or use the phrasing "bills itself as"; or perhaps seek NRA explanation of their interpretation when making that statement. I would also suggest the neutral statement of facts WP already had is superior "The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American nonprofit organization that advocates for gun rights. Founded in 1871, the group has informed its members about firearm-related bills since 1934, and it has directly lobbied for and against legislation since 1975." That an "oldest civil rights" claim is variously made by NRA, NAD, NAACP, LULAC, National Urban League, etcetera seems a matter of interpretation not shown here -- and not necessary. Markbassett (talk
  ) 05:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Are any of these websites not considered usable as reliable sources? Crystalstar2007 recently added a number of citations to various articles and I can't tell if they're reliable. Some of them might be considered self-published. I've seen PopCrush removed for being unreliable before, but this could have been because it's not considered reliable for musical genres.

• Break Free (1 use on the English Wikipedia) (http://www.breakfreeco.com/reviews/6/9/2016/alphabet-boy-melanie-martinez)
• Just Random Things (2 uses) (http://justrandomthings.com/2017/09/09/watch-fifth-harmony-glam-deliver-music-video-review/)
• Poparazzi (2 uses) (http://poparazzi.org/watch-dua-lipas-bizarre-music-video-for-idgaf/)
• Hey Nineteen (3 uses) (https://hey-nineteen.com/2017/07/12/sorry-not-sorry-demi-lovato-review/)
• Inflooenz (3 uses) (http://inflooenz.com/?artist=Becky+G&influencer=)
• The Fact Site (7 uses) (https://www.thefactsite.com/2015/11/becky-g-facts.html)
• Tell Tales (9 uses) (https://www.telltalesonline.com/22443/glory-days-songs-ranked/)
• Outlet Mag (10 uses) (http://outletmag.co/album-review-little-mix-glory-days/)
• Spin or Bin (23 uses) (http://www.spinorbinmusic.com/item/5009-ally-brooke-hints-that-she-is-engaged-in-fifth-harmony-s-deliver-music-video)
• Amnplify (34 uses) (http://amnplify.com.au/portfolio-items/fifth-harmony-fifth-harmony-album-review/)
• All-Noise (38 uses) (http://all-noise.co.uk/new-music-video-review-deliver-by-fifth-harmony/23339/)
• Popdust (59 uses) (https://www.popdust.com/melanie-martinez-2016-cry-baby-tour-dates-1905097162.html)
• Gossip Cop (87 uses) (https://www.gossipcop.com/fifth-harmony-live-kelly-ryan-performance-deliver-video-watch/)
• Hello Giggles (97 uses) (https://hellogiggles.com/reviews-coverage/little-mix-power-music-video/
  )
• Baeble Music (103 uses) (https://www.baeblemusic.com/musicblog/3-2-2017/song-of-the-day-temperamental-love-by-bridgit-mendler-and-devontee.htm)
• CelebMix (158 uses) (https://celebmix.com/album-review-fifth-harmony/)
• Cryptic Rock (189 uses) (https://crypticrock.com/little-mix-glory-days-album-review/)
• Entertainment Focus (271 uses) (https://www.entertainment-focus.com/music-section/music-reviews/albums/little-mix-glory-days-album-review/)
• PopCrush (817 uses) (http://popcrush.com/fifth-harmony-2017-album-review/
  )

Jc86035 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RS since you have summarized the problem and brought it up. Maybe look into all of them, describe how they do or don't meet key RS criteria, and start an RFC about excluding the ones that don't. That said, I may have somewhat of a bias against all sources of this variety because they look so unprofessional and designed to appeal to a fairly crude audience. —DIYeditor (talk

) 01:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a request at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#From_the_Wikipedia_Library to add a list of sites from TWL partners to the whitelist. This would be appropriate if they are generally reliable and not a likely vandalism source. Will process in a week if no objections, feel free to discuss further here. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I just found these 2 sources (pakistantimes.com and pakistanherald.com) at a newly created article

The bio is notable but above mentioned sources aren't reliable. They are listings. Störm (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@

GSS-1987: These two are not considered RS. --Saqib (talk

) 04:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply guys.

talk|c|em

) 06:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)