Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 245

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

Hi all. I was hoping for some opinions on the use of census data as a reliable secondary source. There may be guidelines that cover this point, but I cannot find any. The problem I sometimes encounter is that govt official data from a national census is taken as definitive and factually correct when used to back up a claim in a wp article. An example is the number of native/first language speakers of a given language can be 'verified' by reference to census results that claim , say, 10,000 speakers. This claim is not secondary opinion, it is a primary source that is simply passed on by the census collecting body. Also, the original question might have been 'can you hold a basic conversation in xyz language?', with the reply being limited to yes or no. This is open to very wide interpretation by the box ticker, so anyone who thinks that being able to say only 'hello and goodbye' allows them to tick the yes box, and that person will then be taken as a fluent native speaker, even though no such claim was ever made by the census body. These census results then have a habit of being taken up by reputable bodies, such as Ethnologue, and become even more entrenched as factually correct. Any opinions welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

which census at what article? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

also by Wikipedia standards Ethnologue qualifies as a hqrs and as the "indispensable" text unless other scholars quibble represents to my reading of policy the scholarly consensus. If they're wrong, well we don't do "truth" we do consensus of highest quality reliable texts. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Must back up 'which census at what article?' by Fifelfoo. This is complicated depending on when & where (census) & then when, where & how published. (Given that we're only focused on RS not OR). AnonNep (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Here [1] is an example, of the claimed speakers of Scots Gaelic, based on government census data that is used as a reference. Is this census data a primary or secondary source? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• It depends on the context, assuming the basic commitment to veracity from the reporting agency is not questioned. Census data, in it's final published form, is the analytical product of professional demographers, social scientists, and statisticians. Their raw data is the primary source and their conclusions based on that data that is then analyzed and published, in the form of an official census, is secondary. "There are 'X' number of 'Y' persons" is an assertion backed by a secondary source. On the other hand, if the assertion is not innate in the data, i.e. that the number of "X" speakers has declined by "Y" percent, based on an editor's comparative examination of published data not explicitly covered, then it is a primary source, with the attendant attention required to ensure there is no violation of
  WP:WEIGHT in order to give the reader the most complete picture of the issue as possible. LargelyRecyclable (talk
  ) 22:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks LargelyRecyclable for the constructive comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• insource:"finalsite.com"
• Delaware Valley Friends School
• Edgeborough School
• Thornton Academy

Near as I can tell, the company Finalsite creates promotional websites for private schools. Their about us page says "FINALSITE IS THE PREFERRED DIGITAL MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM FOR SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS AROUND THE WORLD." We have three examples using their site listed above. For the noticeboard, are these independent & reliable and should they be retained in the articles? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Followup to myself, Edgeborough School is wonky cite that was adjusted here to say "by Finalsite UK", maybe they are hosting it somehow? I don't know. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Followup again: archived Edgeborough site shows that it once displayed "by Finalsite UK". ☆ Bri (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it is a user generated site, so it might be RS for uncontroversial claims, but not for notability or controversial claims.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am struggling to see how a marketing site would be useful as a source. Even if a claim is factually accurate, it should not be presented in the form of spin. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

They are a tailored webhost. Its not just pure marketing. So they would only be useful as far as primary source information goes. They offer/offered hosting packages to various groups/institutions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• insource:"enterstageright.com"

I could not find any RSN entry in the archives in relation to this site. There are only 49 results in the above search for current use. As can be seen in the results, the articles it is used in are often on controversial topics. Let's see a section of the site about environmentalism: [2] (or, antienvironmentalism propaganda)... What first catched my attention was its use in text that I recently reverted here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a right-leaning content mill roughly on par with Newsmax. They appear to run a fair number of conspiracy theory articles, and they accept user submissions as long as those submissions "fit their editorial slant". Their manifesto makes it fairly clear that they are driven by an agenda. I wouldn't use them for any claims of fact, and I would be extremely skeptical of citing them for statements of opinion, given that they appear to be fairly fringe-y even among right-leaning media outlets. Nblund ^talk 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So basically they are not an RS unless the user submission is from a subject matter expert. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm shuffling through some very obscure articles about extremely obscure games on a very obscure platform called the

Might be worth asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh.... I didn't even know that was a thing that exists. Ignore this then.

💸

17:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Are these sites reliable sources for the US government's contracts and payments? --Seyyed(t-c) 16:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The first no, it just looks like Just Another Site. As to Govtribe, might be issues with SPS as well as issues over neutrality (after all it appears to be a marketing site of some kind. I think we need to kn ow what it is being used for, but at this time my gut feeling is no it is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times is obviously a reliable publication. But what is the scope of its reliability? Are columns by David Brooks or Maureen Dowd reliable sources because they are published by the New York Times? In general, should we avoid op-eds as sources? As newspapers publish more click-bait, it seems that even publications which are generally deemed reliable may sometimes publish material that is unreliable. Can editors challenge a source on this basis? Or is the standard that the water all comes from the same well? I have a similar question about the Texas Handbook Online. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. They would presumably be reliable sources for David Brooks or Maureen Dowd having said something, but they wouldn't be a reliable source for a :statement like "vitamin c cures cancer." Where and for what were they being used as sources? --tronvillain (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain: Thanks for the reply. I am using David Brooks and Maureen Dowd just as examples to inquire about the relationship between the reliability of a newspaper compared to the reliability of opinion columnists. I thought I might avoid my real question because it might become entangled with other issues (which are not relevant here). But a bit of context would illicit a more specific answer. I found myself willing to accept an [3] op-ed column from the Houston Chronicle to support a description of a local historical event: the Allen brothers advertising the paper town of Houston. FWIW, I think the columnist is knowledgeable about local history, but it is an opinion piece. Second, should the tone of writing within the source be a factor in the way we evaluate reliability? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah not pointing out the exact circumstances doesnt work. In addition to what collect has said below, when an opinion column is written by an expert who states something as fact, and those actually are facts, rather than opinions, it doesnt necessarily need to be attributed as an opinion. Without knowing a)what article, b)what material needs a source, c)what the source actually is (as is stated at the top of the page) the best answer you will get it 'Opinions have to be attributed as opinions almost all the time'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RSOPINION appears to say "no" as with other responses here. I can think of an exception to this: Paul Krugman making a claim about the unemployment rate in his column since he is an expert on the subject, but not an RS for a claim about local history. Oldsanfelipe (talk

) 22:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, they do appear to have been advertising using those words at that time, at least based on this reprint of the text of a Telegraph ad: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/21926144/the_city_of_houston_what_was_thought/ --tronvillain (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all of Gray's statements in the column about the Allen brothers are true (except she is wrong about the acreage of land). That's why this is an attractive source to me. However, it's an opinion column and I have a question about tone. That's the dilemma and it seems like policy says, "do not use it for this purpose." Oldsanfelipe (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION may be worth reading. Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 16:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"Opinion columns" are not "fact-checked" as a rule, so they are reliable only for the opinions, clearly cited and attributed as such. Collect (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I have used a few op-eds in the past. I need to find those and improve the sources. Some of my early edits have other types of sketchy sources and I need to fix those, too. Thanks to all, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Balancing aspects requires that articles provide weight to facts according to their overall treatment in reliable sources. You are better to use the original reporting. TFD (talk

) 23:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been an on-going discussion ([4] [5] [6] about RS for a variety of box office bomb pages, but mainly List of box office bombs (2000s) and List of box office bombs (2010s). Recently one of the editors has suggested that Looper.com (and specifically this page) qualifies as RS. It seems to meet some elements of RS but also raises my eyebrows a bit and so I thought I would seek the wisdom of this group. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This question has been raised over at

The article in question is: Corbyn receives a huge boost from 36 Jewish groups worldwide, embarrassing the media. The media, it would seem, has largely ignored this.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is an RS question, it is an unreliable source?Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that this is generally a tabloid with no reputation. This particular piece claiming Jeremy Corbyn has received a major boost from 36 Jewish groups worldwide, embarrassing the corporate media (in the body of the article, not the title) - off of the predictable support of Jewish Voice For Labour, Jewish Socialists’ Group, JVP, and a host of even lesser known organizations - is... counter factual.... And generally when a site states "corporate media" has been "embarrassed" - it is a self-admission of being fringe.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a biased political blog, so no. (And, for the record, so is Guido Fawkes, so don't anyone accuse me of being a right-wing Tory / UKIP nazi facist, as some comments on these sort of blogs are prone to do to anyone who's vaguely to the right of Lenin). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this a RS question or a WEIGHT question? I don't think anyone doubts that 36 groups signed this letter, but the text in the edit (huge boost etc.) is not a 'mainstream' view - and what respect or significance (or even in what sense the groups are 'Jewish') to give to the letter, I don't know. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Initially it was purely an RS question, it has now shifted.Slatersteven (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• [8]

Japanese news site of some kind. I'm looking up information on

It doesn't look bad as it's being used in the article. Any evidence that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? --

talk

) 15:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Eight of the 16 refs are to a single article by a cop who was part of the investigating team (and who clearly believes that it was a 'technicality' that got the verdict set aside) - so hardly neutral reporting. What is the BLP position of naming 2 people whose guilty verdict was 'set aside' - assuming of course that the two named people are still living? Pincrete (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't notice that Greg Stejskal was part of the investigating team. Not having a clear disclosure puts the reference and publisher in a bad light. I agree that an editor with expertise in this specific type of journalism would help.

More specifics are needed if we're to comment on it's reliability for any specific content. POV and BLP issues likewise need specifics and should be brought to the appropriate venue. --

talk

) 13:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I just posted a notice at BLPN for more input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please can someone come by Talk:Three-check chess and adjudicate as to whether the documentation of Lichess and Chess.com are adequate reliable sources regarding the rules of a chess variant. An editor is aggressively defending that only one source can be considered reliable and reverting any such edits, while I (and I believe another editor) disagree with his interpretation of that source. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• The question seems to be about whether checkmate is a win in three-check-chess. If it was only one of these online servers implementing that it is a win, I would say there's no evidence of that being anything more than a local convention. But when three or more do the same thing, that's stronger evidence. Of course, I'd prefer better sources but on balance I'd say it should stay in. Also not a fan of the ranting and insults from IHTS. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reyk. Thank you. Also not a fan of the ranting and insults from IHTS --> My coming here is an effort to try and resolve this situation without having a long, fruitless, exchange with an editor who wants other editors to stop wasting [his] time. I would appreciate if you could make edits as you see fit to Talk:Three-check chess and/or Three-check chess. For what it's worth since filing this request I've been told by IHTS to Quit destroying articles. --LukeSurl ^{t c}
  10:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I dont think I'll start tag-teaming on this. I just think that, on balance, these sources are probably OK. Reyk _YO! 10:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• They are not RSs. They are simply the way programmers at those sites decided to write their software. (Based on what research? Probably none.) The fact more than there are three online-play server sites with the same "checkmate is a win" rule, is about as reliable as mirror sites replicating erroneous information found on Wikipedia. You don't know what you're talking about, you're not qualified to sit in judgment on the games rules. You know nothing about Pritchard's enclcyopedias, yet you trump them with online mirror site software, assuming that has some credibility which it doesn't, assuming those decisions implemented by programmers was based on good research, again a faulty assumption. (Why would you assume such a thing and make a case for it?? In the face of a real RS from an expert in the field??) Bogus reasoning. --IHTS (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not taking the bait. Sorry. Reyk _YO! 10:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable as examples of 3-check as it is widely played and implemented. But it's a variant form of chess. Unless someone writes a definitive contest-level rulebook that gets widely adopted, you are not going to get much better. RE Pritchards, unless it states something specific about checkmate, normal rules apply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  No, you're wrong. On what basis do you think you can assert that? If checkmate were an alternative way to win, Pritchard w/ have stated it. The article reflects now, how the game is mistakenly played and implemented. (And by whom? Ignorant programmers at those server sites? Their ignorant managers? That's what Wikipedia has now, their misnomers trumping original game rules. Pritchard encylopedias are the only reliable sources to those rules. If checkmate were an optional way to win, Pritchard w/ have spelled that out. How would I prove those rules? By contacting Anatoly Karpov on the point. But would an Email from him, confirmning it, stop what is going on here? Probably not! Even though that is the way to prove. The server sites are wrong, they've spun their own version of the game, probably not even knowing it or thinking about it. They are not reliable sources!! Only to themselves. So make the article about their own game then, fine with me. Their version wasn't based on research but ignorance, and probably programming expediency. So how does that trump RS?? It doesn't. But you are willing to make that happen. --IHTS (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  No you're wrong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Gosh, such a real convincing argument, that! What a joke. You don't know what you're taking about. --IHTS (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry I thought this was 'make statement unsupported by evidence day' by your previous comments and I was just joining in. Suffice to say unless Pritchard makes a comment about checkmate in 3-check it doesn't contradict any other source. I'm also, like Reyk, not going to be drawn on hypotheticals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  I actually meant that I wasn't going to respond to IHTS's personal attacks by losing my temper and ranting back, but this works too. Reyk _YO! 11:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• It seems that issues relating to this article are now resolved. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @LukeSurl: They're not resolved. The statement that Pritchard doesn't say something is bizarre. He also doesn't say that you can't knock over the pieces and claim that you win; he also doesn't say what happens if you don't see a check; he also doesn't say what happens if you check someone by moving a bishop as a horse... because they just don't make sense to include. I would want to see a source to verify the anomaly of checkmate not mattering, not a source to say that checkmate exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I would say there's three possible explanations for why Pritchard omits mention of checkmate in three-check chess: 1) it isn't a winning condition and he quite sensibly hasn't listed a rule that doesn't exist, 2) it so obviously is a winning condition that explicitly saying so doesn't seem necessary, or 3) he doesn't know. Personally, I think (2) is the most likely of these since I can't imagine how a non-fatal checkmate in this variant would even work. But speculations like this shouldn't go into articles and, if Pritchard really is the only authoritative printed source on the topic, I think mentioning what he does and does not say seems reasonable. Reyk _YO! 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • A work is not typically considered reliable first, in all of its parts, for all purposes. We do need to have some editorial evaluation on our end to determine when something is a reliable source, and what constitutes a legitimate challenge. I've seen too many times editors finding one reliable source and deciding the glut of sources that contradict it simply cannot be considered and are not cause to question the one reliable source. If our one source is contradicted by everything else, even if those other sources aren't very good, that's cause to question our one source pending a second source backing it up. Even reliable sources can be challenged if they're the only source covering something in a certain way. And if this little section of a single book is the only reliable source on the subject, the article should just be deleted as failing GNG. It does nobody any good to have an article about something based on a single source that's contradicted by [primary-sourced] common practice and logic (although, to be clear, in this case the book isn't necessarily contradicted -- it's an editor deciding that we must not try to understand what the source means beyond the literal words written). Who wants a set of articles based on a single book's coverage of those topics rather than the topics themselves? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Generally Pritchard goes into sufficient detail where the rules differ, and does not repeat standard chess rules except where they are modified, changed or rendered obsolete - otherwise his book would be 500x larger. AFAIK it makes no mention of checkmate for 3-check, so its assumed it stays the same. Functionally when playing 3-check, if checkmate wasnt a winning condition, it would impact on lots of other rules/situations which Pritchard also makes no mention of. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
        • To me your logic is upside-down. Plus I don't think you're really familiar w/ how Pritchard writes. The winning objective is key importance, it is what defines the game. If there were a side-condition that also won (i.e. checkmate), it would be crucial to spell that out (and Pritchard w/ have done so, even if it's "normal checkmate"), and not left up to "assuming and presuming", since that added condition has total drastic impact on the way the game is played--it's strategy & tactics. --IHTS (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is most of the variants we have articles about just aren't that notable. IHTS and others treat Pritchard as gospel read by biblical literalists because it's about the only source that can easily be argued to be RS. Right now our article has the absurd claim that the game follows the rules of chess and that "Pritchard does not mention what happens if checkmate is delivered before a third check" (again, because it's what some regard as the only reliable source) as though it would be the normal rules of chess to continue playing after checkmate (i.e. moving into check by force). If there's only one source, there's a problem. That's aside from the idea that it seems unlikely, in 1994, that anyone at the publisher could/would provide any kind of editorial oversight over the content of a chess variants book, or that someone writing a little bit about a whole lot of obscure topics is bulletproof, or that a book about chess variants before they became internationally known via Internet chess servers would be most authoritative. Here's the OR part, which I'm not proposing for the sake of adding to the article, but for the process of selecting reliable sources: Having never been to the Soviet Union, I know nothing about what was played there, but it's logically impossible to say it followed the rules of chess and say that checkmate was just ignored, and having played the game on and off for about 20 years (yeesh...) on every chess server that has offered it (and offline, but with other people who know the game from those servers), I've never heard anyone propose/talk about a version that ignored checkmate. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are all bogus. Plus you're an insulting jackass. ("Biblical literalist"?!) You don't know what you're talking about. (Do you even have the Pritchard encyclopedias? I expect you don't. Have you spent hundreds of hours with your nose in them? Didn't think so either. Yet you think you can tell us "how Pritchard writes". Such unwarranted pomposity! Who says a Three-Check Chess game must continue after a checkmate?? No one. No one except you. Yet you try and attribute that absurdity to me! Did you read Talk? Why repeat a bogus argument here that was answered there? You know nothing what you're talking about: Beasley states in CECV, Pritchard had manuscript notes presumaby from communications w/ Karpov (who, duh, knew the original rules of this Soviet game). Yet you say Pritchard couldn't have researched the game and lacked "oversight". What a blowhard in-the-dark argument! You think playing Three Check Chess on servers' software version of the game makes you an authority on the rules?? What an argument! Don't make me laugh so hard I throw up. --IHTS (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

More bogus argument from you: "it's logically impossible to say it followed the rules of chess and say that checkmate was just ignored". Who said that? Who are you saying wrote "Three Check Chess follows the rules of chess"?? Pritchard!? No, he didn't. So who said that? You did! For the purpose of hanging on an additional winning condition. That's total

WP:OR. --IHTS (talk

) 19:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And why aren't you put your xxx where your mouth is, by responding at Talk:Three-check chess#Test your mettle? You are oh-so confident here in this thread, but strangely absent from replying Yes or No in that Talk sec. Lacking confidence much? --IHTS (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is just one example, among hundres of others ... From Pritchard ECV, p. 184:

Maharishi, Karl Koch (1987): Board 8×8, Black usual array, White has Nd3 only. Black starts and moves so that White can (and must) capture. Thereafter Black moves so that White captures; where White has a choice of captures, Black chooses. White wins if all Black's men are taken; Black wins if he is unable to offer a man for capture.

Checkmate is not mentioned as a winning condition. Do you still want to presume/assume it is, on the basis it isn't mentioned?!? --IHTS (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... pass. This one's just not important enough to respond to wade into this/that toxic mess. For anyone interested, here is the entirety of the content from Pritchard (I'm assuming -- though I suppose I could be wrong -- that the Beasley 2nd edition from which this comes has basically the same, if not more, content than the 1st edition):

Three-Check Chess, which is probably of Soviet origin. The first player to deliver three checks wins. Said to be very skilful: two checks can be achieved fairly easily at the expense of piece sacrifices after which the prospects of a third check with severely weakened forces are close to zero. Karpov is said to have been invincible at the game in his youth (manuscript note presumably deriving from personal communication).

That these three sentences -- half of one paragraph -- is seemingly the only reliable source we have is a problem. It contains no careful explanation of the rules and, well, almost nothing at all. So if we're to keep the article, we must combine this with primary sources to determine the most basic element of a game: the rules, which are omitted here. This should be completely uncontroversial, as the only way this text disagrees with checkmate being valid is if you read between the lines. Yet it is everyone else who's running afoul of OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No we musn't. The reason the rules "contain almost nothing at all", is because the rules are damn simple, period. And Pritchard was a master of writing efficiency. "Reading between the lines" is what you're erroneously doing when you presume/assume. Direct implication, lack of specification, is definitive. See below ... --IHTS (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are more arguments you can't "assume and presume" since Pritchard did not mention checkmate as winning conditon in Three-Check Chess, it is to be assumed/presumed. And quite the opposite: In CECV, Beasley includes the entry for Three-Check Chess in Chapter 10. Chapter 10 is titled: "Different objectives of play". Here is Beasley's entire intro at the top of that chapter:

The normal objective of a game of chess is to give checkmate. Some of the games which can be played with chessmen have quite different objectives, and two of them, Extinction Chess and Losing Chess, have proved to be amoung the most popular of all chess variants.

Obviously, those words are designed to apply to all variants in the chapter. Would Beasley have written Some of the games which can be played with chessmen have quite different objectives if checkmate were a winning condition in Three-Check Chess included in that chapter??

Another argument: Beasley includes Three-Check Chess in sub-chapter 10.3 of Chapter 10. There are eight variant entries in sub-chapter 10.3, Three-Check Chess is one. The title of of sub-chapter 10.3 is:

Other objectives based on mate, check, or stalemate

Which do you think applies to Three-Check Chess? (Based on mate? Based on check? Based on stalemate?) The answer is obvious. And if two of the listed objectives applied in the case of one of the eight variants described in the sub-section, that fact would of course have been spelled out. But it wasn't. Since you're "into" making assumptions, there's plenty of context here to guide your assumption-making--namely Chapter title, Chapter intro, and subsection title--that the named winning objective of Three-Check Chess--"checking three times"--is the only winning objective for that variant. --IHTS (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Another argument why you shouldn't be proffering "what Pritchard means" if you're not intimately familiar w/ the encyclopedias ... Here is the rules specification for one of three versions of another one of the eight variants included in sub-section 10.3: Other objectives based on mate, check, or stalemate:

Dunce's Chess (V. R. Parton, 1961). Three versions. (1) Players have a king, two bishops and two knights in their normal starting positions. Pieces can only advance. The win is by mate or stalemate. If a king gets through the opponent's forces it is invulnerable.

Now notice that both mate and stalemate are specified as winning methods. (It's a good clarification, since the sub-chapter title implies one or the other applies for entries in the sub-section.) Notice how Pritchard spells out mate as a winning condition. (Why do you think he did? According to your logic, he only describes conditions not already a part of standard chess rules. You're wrong about that. He specifies what the winning conditions are--all of them.) --IHTS (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *2 Pritchard also didn't mention if bishops can move in diagonals and whether castling is allowed. He didn't say you can't move into check or that a game is drawn if it becomes king vs. king. Can a king move next to a king to claim check, and if double-check doesn't count as double (or does it?), then does only the player who moved gain a check in that scenario? He doesn't say, so why would we rely on him for our rules. All of these questions are resolved, but in other sources (the primary sources connected to where the game is currently played). Either he is talking about a different game than the one thousands of people have been playing for 20 years or he is talking about the same one. There is no more evidence that he is talking about a different game than there is that he is talking about the same game. Fair enough. As it's not clear, the answer isn't to say "Pritchard doesn't say this and that and this" it's to just not rely on Pritchard for that aspect where the rules are clear elsewhere. This may really all be for naught, though. The more I look for sources the more convinced I am that this is a hard fail re: GNG. I'd nominate it myself, but I feel like that could too easily be construed as in some way done in bad faith, and that's fine. I'll !vote delete if someone else nominates it, but that's about all the energy I'm prepared to expend. It's hard to argue about the specific rules of a game you know really well (although, again, it's possible he's talking about some obscure game that's not the three check chess that's well known today). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• And from that wall of text there is precisely nothing that talks about checkmate. So come back when you have an RS that does instead of engaging in
  WP:OR. Read the top of the damn page. Article, material, is the source reliable for the material. What you want to do is say 'these are not reliable because this other source says nothing about it'. Sorry no. Only in death does duty end (talk
  ) 22:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  (ec) Jealous? I've provided lots of contextual material here, refuting the applied "assumptions/presumptions" that have been the only counter-argument. As far as those server sites being RSs or game rules, guess again. They are simply software decisions made by programmers, or their managers, and they don't identify as experts, or identify at all, and the presumption they did encyclopedic research rather than implement what was expedient to code, is perposterous. They aren't RSs. Rhododendrites's argument that they are the "only potential sources" outside of Pritchard encyclopedias and therefore must be used, is not a valid argument (about as valid as telling a clerk to sell me his $300 air conditioner for $100 because "it's all the money I have on me right now"). If indeed Pritchard encylopedias are the only RS, then tough! Delete the article as Rhodendendrite's suggests then, on that basis. I have no dispute with basing the article on popular (but historically erroneous) programmed rules used by server sites, have at it. But don't imply they are the Pritchard rules, they aren't. And Pritchard apparently based his description on direct communication w/ Karpov, per CECV Beasley note. But nobody has the xxx to take up my challenge at Talk:Three-check chess#Test your mettle, only insult and puff up one's chest. What do you know about this topical area, anyway?? --IHTS (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  You have provided a lot of irrelevant material that has no bearing or even mention of checkmate in 3-check chess. So unless you are going to actually provide a reference that *directly addresses it* your comments can be safely disregarded. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's another example, another one of the eight variants described in CECV sub-section 10.3: Other objectives based on mate, check, or stalemate:

Pion Coiffé (capped pawn). A handicap system whereby one side contracts to deliver mate with a nominated man, a common practice between players of disparate strength until toward the end of the 19th century. [...] The receiver of the handicap could not lose if he succeeded in capturing the pawn which was usually obligated to deliver mate without promoting. [...] A piece might be chosen instead of a pawn.

Okay, so what's the winning condition? Mate with a specific contracted pawn or piece. Pritchard didn't mention checkmate by any other piece, did he. So what happens if the player giving the handicap makes a move that checkmates his opponent, but with a pawn or piece that wasn't contracted? Pritchard doesn't say. (According to you, that w/ be an implied/assumed optional way to win. But that's clearly not the case. So what would happen? Would the checkmating move be illegal to make? Would it end the game as a loss for the checkmating player? A draw? Who knows. But it is clear, it w/ not be an "additional winning condition". --IHTS (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a source that talks about checkmate in 3-check, or I will just start hatting your comments as offtopic blather. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with hatting his comments if he doesn't come up with a source that directly covers checkmate in 3-check chess. As usual, when someone writes things like "you're an insulting jackass" it is a sign that their argument is weak, and this is no exception.

In all chess variants, if the way the knight moves is not specified, the way the knight moves is as defined in the FIDE laws of chess.[9] Likewise for the number of squares, how many pawns are on the board, and what the result of a checkmate is. As Only in death correctly observed above, generally Pritchard goes into sufficient detail where the rules differ, and does not repeat standard chess rules except where they are modified, changed or rendered obsolete. If he doesn't mention checkmate in his write up of 3-check chess (including writing something like "this is the only way to win the game" that would exclude checkmate), then the standard FIDE laws of chess regarding checkmate should be assumed to be in force. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've already refuted those arguments. You don't know what you're talking about. And you promised long ago to never interact with me, to stay clear of each other, after I complained loudly of your continual harassment of me. You promised others that our paths wouldn't probably meet, since your chess articles interest was limited to computers that play chess. You, are dishonest here, harassing me once again. Your arguments have to be taken in that context, since you're repeating old arguments already refuted, without new argument, as though you haven't read the thread. You like to start more shit between us whereby I have to ask you to stop badgering me again, after all these years?? Don't pretend none of this is true. You have even documented elsewhere how to harass others and still be under the WP radar of "policy". Go blow. --IHTS (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is difficult to remember every *******[10] on Wikipedia. If you don't want to interact with me, stay off of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where I am a regular contributor. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That's illogical - I didn't open this thread nor seek it, I'm the only editor arguing my side at the relevant Talk, while you can easily defer to another editor here where I'm involved. You pledged non-interaction on a public board, plz keep that. --IHTS (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Given your stated desire to not interact with me, I am going to ignore all personal comments you make about me. Someone else may wish to collapse such comments (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more, say no more.[11]), but obviously that person should not be me. Good luck with whoever it is who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post insults to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You haven't following the meaning in this thread. I'd suggest reading it again. The argument of others contending that Pritchard specifies alternate winning methods by omission, but assumption, by presumption, by default if not specified, has been refuted. The issue of "checkmate in Three-check chess" was not raised by Pritchard, since it was never a winning method. That topic was raised by others' WP:OR, based on their supposition that server sites are reliable sources who's software and posted rules, supplant Prithard rules, when only Pritchard rules are researched, and specfied by an expert in the field. Asking me to come up with language that specifically addresses something made-up and erronesous is like asking me to prove a piano does not orbit Saturn. (I can't and you know it.) The contextual material here was for those who have already argued their own thinking about "what Pritchard doesn't say" means. (Did that include you?) --IHTS (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't just claim that you have refuted everyone who disagrees with you. You actually have to convince someone. You might also want to consider whether there are any lessons to be learned from this page:[12] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh that's very disturbing. With you it's all about mob rule, isn't it. And not quality of argument. --IHTS (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's right. We call it consensus. You can read about it here:

WP:CONSENSUS

. And it is far superior to the "letting User:Ihardlythinkso do whatever he wants despite everyone else opposing him" method.

Hmmm... Mob Rule. I could use a nice position in a Mob. I have a lot of experience as a Minion and as a Henchman, and "Mob member" would look great on my resume. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess. Please feel free to contribute there. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an advocacy organization which is no stranger to smears as of recently. Is a SPLC article citing Media Matters, a very questionable source, a reliable source of fact for saying that Lauren Southern is alt-right? Pinging Grayfell who introduced it to the article and asserted that SPLC is reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Since I'm already at RSN, is the following source, also provided by Grayfell, reliable? [13] wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh god, again? How many times does this have to come up? Why is "advocacy" being used as a veiled slur here? Is the AMA a reliable source for information on cancer, even though they are opposed to cancer, and advocate against smoking? The AMA sometimes make controversial decisions that get widely covered in the news, so how can we ever trust them to be neutral? The SPLC's history is as flawed as any other large-scale organization working in a controversial area (although why this is a controversial area is worth questioning). The SPLC's willingness to openly oppose hate groups shouldn't be held against it by anyone, but certainly not by Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is generally considered a reliable source, particularly when it comes to hate groups and the far right. It looks like the SPLC is one of several sources that describe Southern as affiliated with alt-right and far-right figures, so this doesn't hinge on questions about the SPLC in any case. For my part, I don't see a problem with saying she's been "described as alt-right", or "she is known for her affiliations with alt-right causes", if that works as a compromise, but scrubbing the intro of any mention of the alt-right seems difficult to justify. Nblund ^talk 22:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: of course we attribute to SPLC when they call someone X but we don't take it as fact. wumbolo ^^^ 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"Of course"? Perhaps you could explain this edit and its summary ("SPLC is unreliable and entirely unacceptable"). --Calton | Talk 13:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:BLP. wumbolo ^^^

15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What's that got to do with anything? I'm talking about your conflicting claims.--Calton | Talk 00:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If SLPC only cites

Media Matters, shouldn't you ask whether MMFA is a reliable source? And for that, there is a loooot of previous discussion you can find in the archives. And the MMFA article SPLC cites in turn cites a number of sources to make its point. As for the other source, I'm pretty sure the Poynter Institute is a reliable source. Regards SoWhy

11:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Whenever this comes up, I say the same thing. SPLC is biased... but that does not mean we should ignore what it says. Its opinion on things like hate crimes are relevant and important to mention. The key is to phrase our text discussing what it says with in text attribution (phrasing it AS opinion, and not simply repeat what it says as unattributed fact). The opinion of the SPLC can then be balanced by noting other, contrary opinions. This is how we maintain a Neutral point of view. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Blueboar, I'm not quite sure what you are saying. They're biased...against hate crimes? Like, that's a bias? And a contrary opinion is what, "I love hate crimes"? Or something like "for this particular group we [some "opposing" organization] don't think their stuff adds up to proposing hate crimes"? Or more like "we [some "opposing" organization] don't think that racist violence is really a crime"? I'm just trying to get a feel for what "biased" means here. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Agree mostly with what Blueboar just said. Use in-text attribution. However, if the SPLC's opinion is also the mainstream opinion, then in-text attribution may not be necessary. The classic example is David Irving being a Holocaust denier. This is a mainstream POV without any real dispute of which I'm aware. That David Irving is a Holocaust denier doesn't need in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • • advocacy, but there is a different noticeboard about that. Yet we accept media matters are a potential RS, but not breitbart, hmm.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk
      ) 19:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• I agree attribution is needed only if its controversial for example Ayaan Hirsi Ali Shrike (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Blueboar, but I want to point out that the "other, contrary opinions" must already carry equal weight. We should never create a
  Tell me all about it.
  13:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I would quibble with that... I agree that we don’t need (or want) to create false equivalences, and so we should not balance mainstream opinions with fringe opinions... BUT... we should still present the mainstream opinions AS opinions. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have several similar comments towards this with the understanding of the current situation between the media, actual public opinion, and what the current state of RS/NPOV policy has come to be alongside NOT#NEWS and recentism, but this board is not the time nor place. I do concur on Blueboar's point, similar particularly everything SPLC reports on falls within

WP:LABEL. Keep opinions as attributed opinions, unless we are far enough away in time to be able to use more secondary sources to judge better if such terms factually apply. --Masem (t

) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Blueboar: If the opinion can have a binary truth value (that is, it can be wholly true or wholly false, even if it can also be partially true or sort-of true), and the opinion is shared by the preponderance of reliable sources, then it's not an opinion at all for the purposes of what we do here. So if the SPLC labels the Aryan Nation a hate group, and other expert sources also label the Aryan Nation a hate group, and there are few to no reliable sources saying that the Aryan Nation is not a hate group, then we should consider "the Aryan Nation is a hate group" to be a fact. Short of that; yes, attribution would be preferred.

Tell me all about it.

15:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For the Aryan Nation, there's been more than enough time (30+ years) that we can collect far-distant secondary and more academic sources to have little doubt as to the factual application of the hate group label (Plus, of course, the US Gov't has specifically labeled them a terrorist threat). We can factually say that as long as we source and explain how they are that. On the other hand, let's take a group like the Incels, which has far less history currently (while technically from 1993, I'd argue we only have the last few years to have a better picture of them in mainstream reporting). The SPLC has already labeled them, and while no question that aligns with the press opinion of the group, we have nowhere close to the time or good secondary sourcing to make that claim a fact, and thus should be attributed (which we do presently). All that goes back to my caution about recentism when dealing with media opinion related to recent controversial topics. --Masem (t) 16:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I picked the Aryan Nation off the top of my head as an example that is quite clear. But, if we have numerous expert sources (note that I keep saying "expert sources" meaning sources with a good reputation who specialize in the issue at hand) all saying that the incels are a hate-based movement and none disagreeing: we should not be stating that as opinion. If the expert consensus changes in the future, we can change our articles then. But when the expert consensus is clear, we should be stating that consensus as fact.

Tell me all about it.

17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've explained this elsewhere before, but we have to understand what our RS policy has allowed to happen in the present environment that basically has eliminated reasonable opinions from nearly half of the entire political/ideological spectrum. We need to be fully aware if, outside what we normally call reliable sources, that there is a serious, non-fringe disconnect with what the mainstream RSes are saying, that we should not be pretending that the RS opinions represent fact. We can't necessarily include sources that discuss the disconnect, but we should not act like that disconnect doesn't exist because we can't source it and force the opinions as facts. That's where we get numerous angry IP and editors and the assertions that WP is overly left-biased. We have to be 100% aware of the state of the world outside of RSes when looking at a topic, and that applies very much to what the SPLC is and recognizing that they have a very specific goal in mind and why most mainstream sources align and backup the SPLC. Mind you, this is still within light of recentism. When we're talking RSes that are written decades later and recentism doesn't apply, then the situation changes. --Masem (t) 23:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we have had this conversation before. And the problem you are pointing to (systemic political bias in our sources) is neither clearly true, nor our problem to solve. If the sources are biased, our duty is to be biased with them. Otherwise, we're going to end up just another advocacy group.

Tell me all about it.

13:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a known systematic bias in the sources, we are supposed to correct that per both NPOV and

WP:BIAS. Assuring that it is a systematic bias first is important (understanding the difference between the systematic bias of a press core that is trying to influence politics in their favor, and the non-systematic bias of near universal dislike of a person regardless of politics or ideologies (eg Bid Laden). How to work with that systematic bias is another. Neither is solved by simply saying "We follow the opinion of RSes", that just means WP is following what the majority of the press want the public to feel, which is different from neutrally covering a topic. --Masem (t

) 13:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

BIAS is about the bias of editors: the very thing that our policy of using only reliable sources is meant to address. It's not about the bias of sources. NPOV pretty much says the opposite of what you're suggesting: It says we should reflect what the sources say, not what we think about what the sources say.

Look, I understand what you're saying, I really do. In principle, I agree with you. If we could establish that the reliable sources are biased in such a way that us citing them using our existing policies resulted in a less accurate portrayal of the world here, then we should change our policies to account for that.

But here's the rub: No-one in the entire world has ever presented the slightest shred of convincing evidence that the media is systemically biased against conservatism or right-wing politics. It's been alleged a million times. Purported evidence has been presented, but in each case, said evidence has been nothing but the difference in coverage of right-wing vs. left-wing subjects, with no hint of anything to establish that the difference is due to bias in the media, rather than being due to fundamental differences between the right-wing and left-wing subjects. Indeed, in every single case that I've seen where this purported evidence has been presented, the difference has been vastly exaggerated. Once in a while, some evidence will be presented that actually is compelling, but without fail, that evidence points to a single media outlet, or a small group of them. Which is fine, because there are plenty of media outlets with a very different bis to counteract these.

Additionally, there has been the ongoing fundamental shifts in the politics of the world at large. The world as a whole, including the majority of right-wing politics, is vastly more liberal (in the American sense) than it was a thousand, a hundred, or even fifty years ago. In recent years, this shift has been most notable withing reactionary right-wing politics. Criticism of the political left has shifted from attacks moving to the left to attacks moving from the left. If you consistently believe what aggresive right-wing politics has to say about the left, then twenty years ago, liberals were weak-willed, overly permissive and didn't care about social order. Now, liberals are racist, violent totalitarians. (See the responses to my argument about Antifa, below). Even the most extreme ends of the far-right do this.

What I'm seeing is a world that is shifting politically to the left, and a media that is following, not leading. This is easily explained by the fact that the media is made up of people, a fact frequently missed by those asserting that the media controls or influences the people. And those people come from all social classes, backgrounds, ethnicities and nations (though of course, there is a decided cis-white-maleness to that industry as well: hardly conducive to a liberal bias). Clearly there's some level of self-selection going on, but not enough to establish the sort of overwhelming dedication to pushing a single political agenda. But any such diverse group would absolutely reflect the political views of society as a whole, even if not perfectly. If you want to make a case that Wikipedia is reflecting a systemic liberal bias, then you need to first establish the existence of said systemic liberal bias, and while that's not an impossible task, you will certainly have your work cut out for you.

Tell me all about it.

14:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

BIAS is very much about source bias as it is about editor bias. Editor bias is the more concerning because it magnifies the source bias effect. The problem with trying to show any type of usable evidence indicating of a left-leaning press is that either 1) the press (or at least the portion that makes our RSes) is never ever going to admit having a liberal bias so we have no RSes from this angle to use, and 2) the sources that do make the claim of liberal bias are not considered RSes so that argument is rejected. My whole point has been that in this aspect of WP of determining the broad direction and approach to writing articles, we can judge for ourselves the best way to handle this, based on our own judgement and sensibilities; we're not bound to any source or the like here. Now yes, getting editors to acknowledge that a bias exist may require sourcing and evidence that leads to this conclusion, but I think there's more than enough of us editors that are old enough to know how news has changed since the time of Woodward and Bernstein that we do not need to unwaveringly follow RSes without doubt. In this specific situation, dealing when SPLC and media label a person or group, we have to be aware that that is a fully subjective call (that's why its a label) and thus should very much avoid calling it as fact even if the sources all assert it as a fact in their language. Doesn't mean we can't include that label, just that attribution and sufficient sourcing backs that up. (There's a bunch of other aspects to this well beyond this discussion which I will not get into here for sake of staying on point) --Masem (t) 15:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BIAS

has one single subsection about sources, and it's about their availability, not their biases. The rest of the essay is about the biases of WP editors.

My whole point has been that in this aspect of WP of determining the broad direction and approach to writing articles, we can judge for ourselves the best way to handle this, based on our own judgement and sensibilities That is, unfortunately, the very definition of

Tell me all about it.

15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I read more about sourcing in BIAS than you might, and further consider it that it doesn't aim to be 100% comprehensive, but let's agree to differ on that point. I do strongly disagree about the OR statement. Fundamentally, there is a certain amount of OR that WPians have to do for any part of writing in WP. This is all behind-the-scenes acceptable OR that doesn't directly get written into articles. What determines an RS? That's made by consensus based on OR. What MOS do we use? That's acceptable OR. What's a notable topic? That's acceptable OR. What structure do we use to summarize a topic? That's acceptable OR. There's a lot more examples, but all that is describing how we approach writing WP behind the scenes, a process that does not require us to follow any sources whatsoever, though we will frequently look to sources to get ideas and concepts to borrow from. Same with the points of recognizing systematic bias and how to write for that. We can't introduce new viewpoints into topics that have no sourcing - that's definitely not acceptable OR, but we can introduce new viewpoints about how to write articles without any issues, which at that point becomes a subject of consensus discussion of whether to adopt or not. --Masem (t) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

But those are different kinds of OR: the form you mention helps determine how we add information. The problem with using our judgement to determine whether sources are biased or not as well as how best to account for this is that now we'd be using OR to determine what information we add. And that, of course, leads to a slippery slope that one needs to take very seriously. For example, what do we do if Fox News is the only reliable outlet to report that the suspect in the murder of a white supremacist was a member of Antifa? Do we believe them because we assume the rest of the media is biased? Or do we assume that -since no-one else reported it- that Fox News was mistaken or being deceptive? Right now, we know that FN has a track record of deception, and though this would be a particularly egregious example, it wouldn't be a shock to find out it was false. But if we were working under the assumption that there's a liberal bias in the media... It's suddenly not so clear.

But let's say we assume that FN got it right. They publish a photo of him dressed up like an Antifa activist, surrounded by other Antifa activists. Well, then that claim gets added to the Antifa article because it would certainly belong there. Then that gets cited by numerous less scrupulous news sources (the news cites us way to often), which then get cited by more scrupulous news sources, who look around and see it "confirmed" in multiple places and run with it themselves. Suddenly, it's an incontrovertible fact that this person was a member of Antifa, even though the only real evidence of that was a photo of him and his friends, dressed up as and making fun of Antifa, because he's always been a libertarian with a dim view of liberals. Of course, a few liberal outlets will have pointed this out, but we will have discounted their views as too biased to merit inclusion.

Tell me all about it.

16:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The same type of OR we are using to judge if sources are RS (including if they fall in RSOPINION) is the same OR we'd use to determine if there is bias in the sources; we consider evidence but our decision is no immediately determined by any exact statement made in sources. And yes, I fully agree that there is a slope that begs a lot of discussion when you start opening up the possibly of questioning RSes, but that should be happening, even if that makes discussion prolonged, it still has a valid point. It's the same type of discussion that this noticeboard is normally supposed to offer. It is an easy out to say "we shouldn't challenge RSes", that eliminates much seemingly unnecessary discussion, but its also enforces the walled garden approach when bias exists. It is more work to have the ability to question sources, but I will continue to argue that this will lead to WP to be a much better work that will stand the test of time and avoid recentism issues. --Masem (t) 16:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Masem, but I am fully with Mjolnir on this one. I understand where you are coming from, but I think your proposed approach would be nothing short of deeply corrosive of the most fundamental of our processes for maintaining NPOV across the project and in complete defiance of of the most basic and longstanding of our policies and community consensus governing content and sourcing. Allowing OR to infect the discourse of whether or not a given source, which otherwise satisfies RS standards, can be used would greenlight POV-pushing by the back door. The result would not be "a little extra work" as you predict, but rather an effect that would devolve every article talk page on the encyclopedia into a subjectivized

WP:RS

because they wanted to exclude PBS and The Washington Post because they are "far-left propaganda tools of the Democratic party". Imagine that on the talk page for every contentious article on the project. Oh, and also the non-contetious ones.

And while the problem is most pronounced with SPAs and new editors, that talk page also illustrates that there are a lot of veteran editors who have let their fidelity with our sourcing policies slip because of their strong feelings on the matter and the general heat on the page, even with policies now that discourage it. A little extra work? Good golly, it would be the end of any kind of stable solution to just about any editorial debate that has to be settled via a standard that is at least quasi-objective. And that's why we have the NOR/RS framework that we have. To pull ourselves and all of our many human succeptabilites towards

WP:CIV, it is one of two vital lubricants to the gears which generate the encyclopedia. Remove it, and this entire project would come to a screeching, cacophonous halt generating only friction, heat, and odour in the place of useful work. Snow ^{let's rap}

04:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Our criteria is not bias but reputation for accuracy. And barring a few incidents SPLC have such a reputation. If they represents lone voice attribution would be needed. But if they represent the mainstream view we do not need to ascribe it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh... a reputation for accuracy tells us whether we may mention something, but not HOW we should mention it. This isn't really a question of reliability, but of writing in a neutral tone. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to state again that the statements the SPLC makes on it's own website are the textbook definition of self-published. And per BLP policy we are to never used self published sources (even expert sources) for BLP's. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a more valid objection. So how is material they write and published no SP?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Demonstrating review independent of the SPLC. This can be independent publishers also publishing their statement, other sources quoting them (in which case the quoted material can be used. The only contention with policy is when the SPLC's statements are only published by the SPLC website. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This has also been discussed in RSN archives before... —PaleoNeonate – 14:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I know it's been discussed, but the self-publishing aspect was not addressed. It was just asserted that they are reliable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not recall ever seeing the suggestion that they cannot be used for their own statements as a SPS in violation of BLP has been raised before. This does seem a valid objection based upon policy, which states that SPS can never been sued in BLP'S unless it is a blp about the publisher.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I brought it up in a previous discussion around this time last year, it's in the archive on page 230. (not to sure on how to wikilink, otherwise I would) The biggest (in my opinion) against it was to compare the SPLC to newspapers, but I don't think it's right to compare an advocacy group to a newspaper when we're determining independent review. Ideally newspapers should have editorial independence, advocacy groups don't have any such standard. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was unaware that our BLP policy said NEVER use an SPS in a BLP. That strikes me as overkill. I suspect the intent was to say never use an SPS for an unattributed statement of fact about the subject... and not intended to ban citing an SPS when discussing what a critic of the bio subject says about the subject (ie an attributed statement of opinion about the subject). Surely we should be able to cite a critic's own words when discussing that criticism... after all, the critic's SPS would be the MOST reliable source possible for verifying what the critic says about the subject. Still that is a question for another time and place. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this more general point should be discussed at either the BLP page or village pump, as this is a policy "alteration". At this time policy prohibits any SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers do not have "independent review" either. They review themselves internally, fact-check their publications and correct identified errors. The SPLC clearly has all of the above in place. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It is an SPS, not RS question and this might well be said to cover it "If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same." the authors is employed by the SPLC to produce a piece of work to promote what the SPLC says. This is (in essence) the nub of this, can any advocacy group be viewed as not SPS for material that promotes it's work? Of course it can also be argue that this is not promotional, but I would disagree as they are using this material to promote an agenda. This is why I think a wider community discussion of the wider issue is more value then just arguing about SPLC.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This misunderstands what a self-published source is. The SPLC is not a "self-published source." Neither is the Anti-Defamation League or the American Medical Association or the Royal Society, for that matter. A self-published source is one which has no substantive editorial controls between the author and publication - a personal WordPress blog or a vanity press book, for example. The SPLC is an established research and advocacy organization with a clearly-established editorial structure, review and fact-checking processes, and policies for correcting and retracting errors. This does not constitute a "self-published source" by Wikipedia standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Not wholly sure this is the case, the SPS criteria seem to say that if you publish your own material that is an SPS, but this is not as RS issue so much as an SPS issue and thus might be best discussed over on that notice board as this seems to be a bit of a borderline case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC is not the author of the material. The particular writer in question is the author of the material; the SPLC is the publisher of the material. Just as each individual newspaper reporter is the author of a particular story, while the newspaper they write for is the publisher. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not what policy says, A self-published source is one that doesn't have independent reviewers (eg ones without a conflict of interest). Advocacy groups, and those working within the advocacy group have an inherent conflict of interest with regards to the groups advocacy. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I would ask you to identify where in our policy there is anything about a reliable source needing "independent reviewers." You won't find it. Newspapers, journalistic magazines, etc. do not have "independent reviewers" either. They have editors, certainly, but those people are not "independent" in any way, shape or form. They're employed by the news organization, just as the SPLC employs editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Uh, it's in

WP: SPS, see note 10 which follows the sentence "caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.", and the very first line of that sentence is "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." --Kyohyi (talk

) 15:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I see where you're misunderstanding things. To be a reliable source, there needs to be someone independent of the author reviewing the material. The SPLC clearly has that - they have an identifiable editorial staff and structure, and material is reviewed and edited before publication. That reviewer must be someone other than the author, but does not have to be independent of the organization. Otherwise, literally no journalistic source would be reliable, because no newspaper in the world turns over their copy to someone who isn't employed by the newspaper before publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it has to be someone without a conflict of interest, and workers within an advocacy group have a conflict of interest with regards to that groups advocacy. Journalism doesn't have that problem due to editorial independence, they shouldn't have a stated position. Stop conflating advocacy with journalism. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Is

FOX News? Reason (magazine)? You seem to think there's some kind of bright line that doesn't exist. There is no policy support for your idea that we can neatly decide that some group is an "advocacy group" and another is a "journalistic group." The National Review certainly does not hand off all its material to an "independent reviewer" to read before publication. Shall we go around removing all citations to NR on the grounds that they are very clearly a conservative advocacy group? That would be absurd and unsupported by policy, of course. But it's the path you seem to want to travel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Kyohi, the SPLC doesn't do journalism and no one is arguing that it is. But NBSB has a point here: with newspapers (and magazines, journals) editorial boards are always in-house, though they may, on occasion, invite outside review. That whole bit about conflict of interest completely misses the point; a journalist doesn't avoid a conflict of interest with her employer because the paper has an editorial board. What matters is whether the organization's work is generally reviewed positively or not. Your opinion misses the point and is irrelevant: what other publications and organizations say is relevant. And your repeated mantra "it is an advocacy organization"--yeah, and? Drmies (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP: NEWSBLOG, this shows that even though the review is "in house" those types of organizations are still considered reliable, this however does not apply to the SPLC because as I pointed out in my "repeated mantra" they are an advocacy organization, not a news organization. --Kyohyi (talk

) 13:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, we're talking about the SPLC, not other organizations. And the SPLC is openly an advocacy organization. Whether or not other organizations are also advocacy organizations isn't appropriate for this discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody appointed you king; you don't get to unilaterally decide what we're discussing. If you'd like to admit that your proposed, novel and unsupportable interpretation of policy has absurd and broken outcomes because there exists no bright line between "journalism" and "advocacy," you're welcome to just stop replying. If you think you can explicate some sort of framework to neutrally decide which is which, you could try and do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't consider whataboutism a valid argument. And I don't think I need to create some magical line between journalism and advocacy when the organization that is the subject of this whole discussion openly presents itself as an advocacy organization and not a news organization. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just curious as to what you think their "advocacy" is. Your statements about "self-published" conflate everything, as if there is no difference between a conspiracy theorist publishing a book via Lulu or an organization like the SPLC. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Please DrMies, I'm not conflating. There just is no written exception to policy regarding organizations like the SPLC. Self-published is clearly defined in policy, and if you think it shouldn't include the SPLC maybe you should propose a change to that definition. Or if you don't think we should change our definition of self-published, then maybe try getting consensus to change the wording on BLP so that certain self-published sources are acceptable. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that your position doesn't have support in existing policy, so you're trying to create a new policy from whole cloth - one that somehow separates "advocacy groups" from "journalism" in a neutral, unbiased and comprehensible manner, and in so doing magically gives you the outcome you want. If you want to do that, the proper place is

WP:VPP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 16:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've pointed out the relevant sections of policy, and you're reply here shows you're well into

WP: IDHT territory here, I won't be responding to you further. --Kyohyi (talk

) 16:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the facts do not support claims such as "The SPLC is generally considered a reliable source, particularly when it comes to hate groups and the far right" or "Our criteria is not bias but reputation for accuracy. And barring a few incidents SPLC have such a reputation".

• Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups': Principled conservatives are lumped together with bigots.
• The Intellectual Poverty of the Southern Poverty Law Center: Branding dissenters as haters undercuts its effectiveness.
• The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance.
• GuideStar has more to do, if it cares about its objectivity.
• Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?
• Department of Defense Purges SPLC Information from its Training Material.
• The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.
• How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?
• Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals?
• The Southern Poverty Business Model
• The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam: A "hate group" list loved by the media is bogus.
• The Southern Poverty Law Center: Anti-Hate Activists, Slick Marketers or Both?
• The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee.
• Southern Poverty Law Center pays $3.4 million, says sorry, over description.
• Pressured, the Southern Poverty Law Center Admits It Was Wrong
• A Demagogic Bully: The Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes respectable political opponents as "hate groups" -- and keeps its coffers bulging.
• Young Conservative Flagged on SPLC "Hatewatch" List.
• King of Fearmongers.
• Hateful speech on hate groups.
• SPLC Won’t Label Antifa a Hate Group: To the SPLC, targeting conservatives and giving Antifa a pass is good for business.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Guy, spot checking a few of those: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not listed as an extremist in the SPLC's list of individual extremists. She may have been mentioned in their field guide once, but that field guide has been replaced by an apology for including Maajid Nawaz in it. Also, the final opinion piece you cited is just ridiculous; Antifa is by definition not a hate group, they are an group opposed to fascism (which almost always entails some form of hate, itself). The argument made in that piece is not only wrong, it's completely fucking stupid. I mean that literally: the intelligence on display in that article is on par with what I would expect to see on Infowars, or possibly below even that.

Tell me all about it.

15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that when a source admits it made an error, retracts and corrects the error, and apologizes for the mistake,

that behavior is specifically cited in policy as a sign that the source engages in fact-checking and is reliable, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 15:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Having to take the SPLC to court to have them settle and apologize for an "error" is far different than having the SPLC voluntarily admitting a mistake and making a simple errata statement without any other drama. --Masem (t) 16:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're just wrong. No lawsuit was ever filed and no court was ever involved. A lawsuit was "threatened" but the SPLC immediately entered negotiations to settle the issue, as per the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"Anyhow — Nawaz very sensibly sued."[14] " 'This is a significant settlement,' Staver told PJ Media. '3.375 million dollars, and it did not even go to litigation; it was a result of a demand letter.'"[15] (A demand letter is often the first step in a lawsuit). You can split hairs about where isn the process from initial demand letter to final verdict a lawsuit technically begins, but the SPLC didn't donate 3 million dollars out of the goodness of their hearts. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if no lawsuit was filed, changing/redacting a statement as part of a pre-court settlement after a threat of lawsuit was made is still not the same a voluntary fix without drama, as the NYTimes routinely does. The "fact-checking" part of RS should be considered that corrected mistakes were fixed without coercion from legal or other reasons, since that should be part of a journalist's thorough fact-checking. --Masem (t) 16:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree it was not voluntary correction so we really should consider if the statements by this organisation is

WP:DUE to include. --Shrike (talk

) 16:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Glancing over them, most of them (though not all of them) are opinion-pieces or newsblogs, largely from people who are pretty upfront about disagreeing with the SPLC's politics, and almost all of them focusing on a small number of very recent events or gripes. I don't think this is enough to seriously question whether something passes
  WP:RS, since we care more about what the mainstream media feels than about what Reason feels - the fact that even people whose ideology is vitriolically opposed to the SPLC are forced to concede that it is treated as a reliable source within mainstream discourse means we must do the same. EDIT: I mentioned this below, but I should also mention that a quick literature search for the past year finds only a single passing mention of any of these (and it's just being used as an example of crowdfunding.) Remember, this is a year out from most of this, so we don't need to read tea-leaves - we can see immediately that none of these had any significant long-term impact on the SPLC's reputation. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 19:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we no waste time again on "but can you see how many sources I can find that says it makes mistake", this is not going to wash wit Fox or The Daily Express, so I fail to see why it should wash here. What we have is a valid objections based upon SPS and BLP. This needs discussion, not rehashing the same tired arguments about bias.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon: You have listed almost all partisan opinions that make one of two claims: 1) The SPLC does not talk about the people, I think it should. and/or 2. It sometimes is wrong. Well, as to 1, no one expects an RS to cover everything you want it to; and as to 2) all RS are sometimes wrong, which is noted in our policy. Let me ask you, if you agree that racism against blacks or other minorities exists, then does shooting a messenger make any sense? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the link at the moment, but as I recall a while back one of the neo-nazi groups published a long list of black rapists, murderers, etc., totally ignoring similar crimes by whites. By all accounts the list was correct -- the people listed did commit those crimes -- but somehow I don't think you would defend the neo-nazis with your "no one expects them to cover everything you want it to" argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Guy, Are you suggesting that Antifa is ethically equivalent to neo-Nazis? I would certainly suggest that a white rapist is ethically equivalent to a a black rapist, as in your analogy.

Tell me all about it.

17:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No analogy is perfect, and you can always find some way in which they differ. That doesn't change the fact that the SPLC will call you a hate group if you merely express the opinion (based upon your religious beliefs) that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I strongly disagree with any religion that teaches that, but to call anyone expressing that opinion a hate group is wrong. Yes there are significant differences between antifa and neo-Nazis, but, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL),

"Today's antifa argue they are the on-the-ground defense against individuals they believe are promoting fascism in the United States. However, antifa, who have many anti-police anarchists in their ranks, can also target law enforcement with both verbal and physical assaults because they believe the police are providing cover for white supremacists. They will sometimes chant against fascism and against law enforcement in the same breath."

"While some antifa use their fists, other violent tactics include throwing projectiles, including bricks, crowbars, homemade slingshots, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces. They have deployed noxious gases, pushed through police barricades, and attempted to exploit any perceived weakness in law enforcement presence."

"Away from rallies, they also engage in 'doxxing,' exposing their adversaries’ identities, addresses, jobs and other private information. This can lead to their opponents being harassed or losing their jobs, among other consequences."[16]

But this is left-wing violence, so it's OK. Meanwhile non-violent right-wing religious groups are "hate groups". This is done by a careful manipulation of the definition of "hate". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your analogy hinged upon the ethical equivalency between white and black crime, so I don't think my response is irrelevant at all. Indeed, my question is germane to this discussion, as well: Are you saying there's an ethical equivalence between reactive violence against neo-nazis and fascists; and proactive violence by far-right groups? Also, regarding the religious groups; do you think that advocating for laws that limit the rights of other people because your religion forbids you from exercising those rights is anything less than hateful? Especially when the other people in question are subject to higher rates of violent crime at the hands of people inarguably inspired by said religious groups...

Tell me all about it.

21:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Especially when the other people in question are subject to higher rates of violent crime at the hands of people inarguably inspired by said religious groups... that's a bunch of false whataboutism. The violence that did happen which has relevance to this discussion is the SPLC-inspired terrorist attack. But I will not go down that route, since I believe it's not SPLC's fault that terrorist attack occurred. wumbolo ^^^ 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: That is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. Please stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I reject your claim of "reactive violence against neo-nazis and fascists". Antifa groups show up at marches an rallies where neo-nazis are doing nothing more than exercising their free speech right to say some very unpopular (unpopular with me as well; Words cannot express how distasteful I find their message) things armed with weapons and physically attack the neo-nazis. Please read and understand what the ADL is saying.[17] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I reject your claim of "reactive violence against neo-nazis and fascists". Antifa groups show up at marches an rallies where neo-nazis are doing nothing more than exercising their free speech right... Unite the Right rally#Vehicular attack and homicide. Again, I'll ask if you think that counterprotesting violent hate groups while threatening violence targeted against those groups is ethically equivalent to calling for the ethnic cleansing of our country in between committing numerous violent crimes against non-whites, gay and trans people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You are as good at doing research as I am. If you really care about whether your claims are true, research antifa violence and post a count of how many times antifa groups reacted to immediate violence by those they fought and how many times antifa groups were the first ones to resort to violence.

This is the United States of America. Anyone, from communists to nazis -- is allowed to express their views, no matter how repugnant, in public as long as the demonstration/rallies/etc. are not violent. Physically attacking them is illegal and goes against the core principles of our constitution. Antifa shows up heavily armed and ready for a fight.

• Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis
• Antifa activists say violence is necessary
• Antifa violence in Berkeley spurs soul-searching within leftist activist community
• The Rise of the Violent Left
• Who are the Antifa?

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you're not answering my question. I haven't ever even hinted at a denial that Antifa is violent. They are. Whether or not a group is violent is an indicator of whether or not they are a hate group, but it is by no means the sole definition. Furthermore, whether Antifa should be subject to the same denouncement as Neo-Nazis is not a function wholly of whether they are also violent.

To make your case that the SPLC should classify Antifa as a hate group, you need to establish that Antifa targets groups whose identifying characteristics are fundamental (race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc). To make your case that Antifa should be denounced on an even keel with neo-Nazis or other recognized hate groups, you need to establish that Antifa is just as violent as those groups.

To make your case that Antifa is just as bad as groups like the FRC, you need to establish that Antifa has inspired hate crimes at the same level as those groups.

You might recognize all of those points as counterfactual. That's the unfortunate truth for the conscientious conservative or moderate: Hatred and bigotry are intimately associated with right-wing politics, whereas they are antithetical to left-wing politics. This may not seem fair to those who identify as right-wing or outside the left-right spectrum, but it's a simple fact. This is not to say that left-wing politics doesn't have its own issues, merely that hatred and bigotry are not among them.

Tell me all about it.

16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@

MPants at work: Have you heard of Mass killings under communist regimes? I have, but I have not heard of Mass killings under capitalist regimes or Mass killings under neoliberal regimes or Mass killings under paleolibertarian regimes or Mass killings under anarcho-capitalist regimes. wumbolo ^^^

10:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@

ISIS was capitalist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

15:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So? Let me restate my prior question, what gives you or anyone the the authority to insist SPLC talk about Antifa the way you insist they must be talked about? Your argument can hardly be a defense of free speech, when what you claim you want is certain speech from SPLC.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Southern is also described as either alt-right or associated with the alt-right in the New York Times, the New Yorker among other sources. She's also quoted describing "what alt-right means" in a Washington Post article describing the alt-right "in it's own words". She was refused entry to the UK while traveling with Brittany Pettibone, a writer for Altright.com. SPLC aside: is there really a serious question about whether or not she is associated with the alt-right? Nblund ^talk 16:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  Whether she's associated with the alt-right is not at dispute. But some editors want the references for that fact to be SPLC instead of other non-controversial RS. wumbolo ^^^ 16:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So you're just objecting to the SPLC being used as one of several sources for a claim that you agree is true? Nblund ^talk 19:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If there other sources exist why use SPLC? Shrike (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess it might be reasonable to remove that source while keeping the comment, but it kind of seems like pointless quibbling. The

WP:RS policy is all about questions of verifiability, so if editors agree that a statement is verified, I'm not sure how it harms anyone to have one more source. Nblund ^talk

20:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• The latest trend seems to be to attack people as "associated with" or "linked to" certain groups. This is an end-run around the truth as now one no longer needs to prove someone actually holds certain hateful beliefs, but just that their work appeals in some vaguely-aligned way to a group that does. Jordan Peterson, Sargon of Akkad, Southern, and others have fallen prey to this, which amounts to nothing more than gross guilt by association without having to offer proof of either the guilt guilt nor the association. It presents the subject a loaded question - even if they vigorously deny holding hateful beliefs, they still have to constantly deny any association to groups that do, and their denials are used as proof that their content appeals to those hateful groups, otherwise why would they feel the need to deny it? Its witch trials and McCarthyism for the modern age. So yea, "is there really a serious question about whether or not she is associated with the alt-right?" is an untenable question to ask. -- Netoholic @ 23:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That’s your opinion. And accusations of McCarthyism is way over the top. Let us just use Wikipedia guidelines and reliable resources. I haven’t seen any reliable sources accuse the SPLC of McCarthyism. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mention SPLC, but its funny that you thought I was and brought them up. -- Netoholic @ 00:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You think it is funny that I mistakenly thought you were talking about the SPLC in an RSN discussion of the SPLC? Silly me. I'll know better next time. O3000 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz was falsely listed as an "Anti-Muslim Extremist" in October of 2016.

For a year and a half the SPLC stood by its listing in the face of criticism from multiple sources.

Then in June of 2018 after Nawaz sued them, they apologized, retracted, and paid a $3.375 million dollar settlement.

Our policy says that "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." The above behavior is the exact opposite of fact checking and publishing corrections. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you're wrong. Nawaz never sued the SPLC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You keep asserting that, but the sources say otherwise:

• "Anyhow — Nawaz very sensibly sued."[18]
• "A former Islamic radical named Maajid Nawaz sued the center for including him in its bogus "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists," and last week the SPLC agreed to pay him a $3.375 million settlement and issued a public apology." [19][20][21][22][23]
• "Nawaz sued, and the SPLC plainly realized it couldn’t win: It has agreed to pay $3.4 million to settle the case and also issued a full apology."[24]
• "As a result, Nawaz sued the SPLC, receiving a $3.75m settlement and an apology in June 2018"[25]
• "Nawaz sued the SPLC for slander, winning a lawsuit that included an apology to him by the SPLC and payment of over $3 million dollars in damages."[26]
• "Nawaz sued SPLC for defamation. 'They are ideologically driven to silence any voice that introspects from within the Muslim community,' Nawaz said of SPLC, adding that the group is mostly 'interested in point-scoring against the right wing.' "[27]

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your emphasis on this one case seems like recentism and whataboutism. The fact remains, they made a very, very prominent correction (they had actually removed the statement before the lawsuit). Not only that, to the extent their money is at risk, all the more reason, we use RS, because they have to review for legal issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment SPLC does has done some good work, no doubt. But their website cannot be considered a reliable source because (1) It's self-published; (2) it's independent; (3) it's website is a primary source. Taking their statements and claims from their website as a reliable source for supporting article content would be comparable to doing the same with Alliance Defending Freedom. Or Christian Research Institute. Or the Democratic National Committee. It's all pretty much one-sided and opinion. We don't use online blogs and opinion columns from media sources, why would we allow the use of a primary source for a law firm that uses opinion (and really, unless case law is being cited, that's all lawyering is) to persuade and establish a point? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the SPLC should not be considered a RS on their comments alone. They have been proven to be ideologically driven and non neutral in their analysis. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's ultimately because you made up that "rule", but still regarding "proven": ^{[citation needed]}. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just take a look at some of the news articles linked above. They have shown time and time again, most recently, that they are a leftist ideological organization, and if you share their views, then no matter how hateful you are, you won't be labeled, and on the flip side, you can be a Muslim who shares concerns about issues and you'd be labeled a hater because you don't agree with the SPLC viewpoint. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What? SPLC lists in addition to white nationalist black nationalists as Hate Groups -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, The SPLC does seem to be at least partially ideologically driven, especially in recent years as they have learned that activism gets lots of funding. I'd agree with
  WP:RSOPINION source, and should be attributed whenever even the slightest bit controversial (and given their area of expertise, that is pretty much always). There is no reason we can't use them, as they are a high profile and oft-cited source, but attribution is the correct way of going about it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here}
  ) 00:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The SPLC is the major organization responsible for original research of far right groups in the U.S. and their research is relied upon by scholars, law enforcement and news media. They also provide lists of these groups, including hate groups. Hate is a generally understood concept. Hate speech is illegal in most countries and violent crimes involving hate draw enhanced sentences in the U.S. Of course whether or not something is hate is an opinion and should always be described as such. The SPLC's opinion is always significant and should be mentioned not because we are ascribing any particular authority to them, but because it is routinely reported in news media. We should also mention in articles about these groups their (predictable) objection. I find it interesting that so many critics of the SPLC say that they have strayed from their original values. Yet none of these critics had ever expressed support for them. TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Outside analysis

Lets post some non-editor POV's

• Purington, Mark S., "Assessing the reliability and accuracy of advocacy group data in hate group research" (2017). 'Masters Theses'. 521.

This thesis (linked above) will examine the hate group data produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, analyzing its accuracy and reliability by examining the SPLC’s methodology and claims. I will also examine the SPLC’s reputation as a trusted source of information by reviewing the history of the organization, its rhetorical practices, and the public statements of several of its key officers........ Many of the SPLC’s rhetorical practices can be compared with the fearmongering and exploitation found in classic propaganda techniques and will be analyzed further in this paper. Instead of serving as an unbiased clearinghouse for hate group information, the SPLC often pursues an ideologically-driven course that is designed to influence a targeted, politically progressive audience...... Mark S. Purington, James Madison University

--Moxy (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a non-peer-reviewed master's thesis; it's essentially useful only to tell us what Mark S. Purington's opinion of the SPLC is, and the relevance of his opinion would depend on whether or not he is in any way considered an expert on such matters. I can't find anything else published by Mr. Purington which would help us determine whether or not he is such an expert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, I'm sorry, this is a serious discussion, and you bring in a Master's thesis? Do you want to be taking seriously? Anyway, it's an interesting bit of writing; one wonders how this got through the committee. "The Southern Poverty Law Center’s sole criterion for a hate group is that it rhetorically expresses statements or opinions about other groups that some find objectionable. This concept, that hate groups are purely ideological entities that pose no real criminal threat to society, is often overlooked by researchers. Potok’s claim that his data are “strictly ideological” removes any possibility of neutrality and implies a distinct bias from the outset." I assume this person, who now apparently has an MA in Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communication, thinks that one cannot objectively criticize The Myth of the Twentieth Century as dangerous because it's a book and doesn't have little hands that can wield little knives. "...that some find objectionable" is echoed by some of the statements here in this discussion and from that place further up north from my house, that somehow racist statements (and threats of racist violence) aren't objectively objectionable. Anyway, Moxy, Mr. Purington is no expert on anything (yet), and this thesis means nothing at all--except for a sad comment on how some people get their degrees. Ha, the right used to accuse the left, and academia, of letting go of truth and objectivity. Guess the tables have turned. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What we are looking for its our side views .... over nameless editors ...if you have the capability of rebutting the thesis that's great.... or bring some more views. The lack of assumption of good faith is disturbing. I personally consider SPLC a great source. What y we need to do is review outside opinions.--Moxy (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

? Drmies (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Then please don't bring in garbage opinions, unless it is your goal to waste time and muddy the waters. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have noted how it would be relevant? Eg. He notes in lengthy prose and objects to use of SPLC by others, while in Wikipedia

WP:USEBYOTHERS is in SPLC's favor. Alanscottwalker (talk

) 14:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The thread above applies the wrong standard. A non-peer-reviewed master's thesis is indeed unsuitable for use as a source in a Wikipedia article, but it is perfectly acceptable as an opinion in a talk page thread that mostly consists of the opinions of Wikipediua editors. In both cases you should evaluate the content of the comment, not the source. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Guy is correct: the value of that piece should be judged based on its contents, not it's origins. That being said, this paper in no way undermines the SPLC. It's just another in a long line of opinionated judgements, venting at the group for their perceived slight of conservatism in the US.

The paper quite ignorantly claims there is no precise definition of "

FBI

and Congress have published concrete definitions of the term. Of course, "hate crime" absolutely has a legal definition, and the two part structure of that term: "Hate" and "crime" allow one to compare that definition to the definition of "crime" to arrive at a precise legal definition of "hate" which can then be used to modify other terms, such as "hate group" to arrive at an equally precise definition (assuming that there is a legal definition of "group" which, no surprise, there is).

The author also asserts without evidence that the SPLC's publications are propaganda, then bases much of his reasoning upon that. Said reasoning was, in fact, to quote a number of sources on the definition and dangers of propaganda: a classic if trite rhetorical trick that ignores the underlying questions "is this propaganda harmful?" as well as the even more fundamental question of "is this even propaganda?"

I might remind Moxy that theses are generally not required to to unimpeachable. Indeed, the very reasons we do not accept theses as reliable sources are the same reasons why in general, we should not accept the claims or conclusions of theses as facts. In this case, the question is begged: what is the subject of this Master's degree? Is it a hard science, such that the reviewers would have actually been knowledgeable of the subject, and expected it to display a competence at using skepticism and logic to arrive at an inescapable conclusion? Is it a "soft" or social science, such that the conclusions must not necessarily be inescapable, but the path towards them no less rigorous?

No. The degree is a Masters of the Arts in Writing, Rhetoric, and Technical Communication. In other words, the most proficiency this thesis could display would be by arguing convincingly for a conclusion which the author knows is false and the reader believes to be false before reading.

So while it's a nice read, to someone such as myself who holds firm to the principles of skepticism and critical thought: it's about as convincing as one of my kids' temper tantrums.

Tell me all about it.

15:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, let's analyze this thing. In the first section is this interesting nugget, Organizations, and even individuals, who oppose U.S. immigration policies on economic or political reasons, or those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons are routinely lumped in with jack-booted thugs by their political opponents as a means of stigmatizing and delegitimizing them. No evidence is provided for the claim, and no rationale is provided for why it would be wrong to discuss people who believe that gay and lesbian people should be denied civil rights (homophobes) in the same ways as people who believe that black people should be denied civil rights (racists). It's simply a priori assumed that it's wrong to "stigmatize or delegitimize" those who believe gay and lesbian people should be second-class citizens. That assumption is hardly accepted in the 21st century.

Further down is this: The Southern Poverty Law Center’s sole criterion for a hate group is that it rhetorically expresses statements or opinions about other groups that some find objectionable. That's simply a false reading or understanding of the SPLC's definition: a group that holds beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. There is a wide gap between a view which is "objectionable" and a view which attacks or maligns an entire class of people based on their immutable characteristics. For example, there are many, many groups which oppose same-sex marriage which are not in any way listed by the SPLC as hate groups; rather, the SPLC lists only those groups which have demonstrably and falsely attacked the LGBT community with smears such as associations with pedophilia, claims that they are dangerous to children, etc. Those are not merely "objectionable" views but rather vile, false and utterly dehumanizing attempts to depict an entire class of people as sexual predators; no different than depictions of African-Americans as subhuman brutes worthy only of manual labor.

I could go on and poke even more holes in this poorly-written mess. But that'll do for now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Fully agreeing that we shouldn't at all judge a master's thesis by a person not recognized as an expert, there are reliable sources that either are opinions or discuss people with those opinions that have similar views eg from CSMonitor, from WaPost, from Fox News (yes, I know...but Fox is still an RS), from NYTimes, etc. (and of course, if I dip into near-right/mid-right not-quite-so-RSes, there's a lot more). The thesis is not presenting a novel thought, but one that does persist on the right and some on the left. --Masem (t) 16:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

What? You have opinions that SPLC is biased against conservatives, and you have opinions that SPLC is biased against liberals. But Wikipedia accepts that RS are biased. You also have RS opinions that the "mainstream" is biased against conservatives and biased against leftists. So? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding that Fox News opinion piece: There's nothing stopping the Koch brothers from channeling millions into the SPLC in an attempt to get it to support their own views.

Tell me all about it.

16:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that an admission the SPLC designations exist to be bought by special interest groups for the purposes of propaganda? How can it be considered reliable if that is the case? --Netoholic @ 03:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not. It would only be such an admission if I stated without qualification that the Koch brothers would get the results they wanted if they tried that. If you think the SPLC is for sale, on the other hand, then you're admitting that they're not ideologically driven. Those two are mutually exclusive.

Tell me all about it.

12:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really, though I would fully agree this is not the case of SPLC (as a nonprofit). Financially-driving, and ideologically-driven concepts are not mutually exclusive, though money often will drive the ideological aspect, and where there is a financial trial, that will affect a group's independence on certain topics. --Masem (t) 13:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your "not really" refers to. As for ideological motivations and financial motivations being mutually exclusive: If "ideology" is determined by money, the money is the motivator. If making money while pushing a given ideology is the nominal motivation, then we won't know which is their ultimate motivation until they are forced to choose. So the two remain mutually exclusive, because even when both play into the decision making process, one will always outweigh the other.

FWIW, I believe that the SPLC is ideologically driven. I just disagree that said ideology is distinctly "liberal" or "Democratic Party-aligned". As has been pointed out previously: The SPLC labels several "liberal" or politically left-leaning groups as hate groups when that label applies.

Tell me all about it.

14:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just read that CSM piece, and it doesn't support your case, or say what you think it does. It never answers the headlining question, and gives more voice to supporters of the SPLC than to its detractors. The WaPo piece is from Marc Theissen whose irrational hatred of the SPLC evinces nothing except that WaPo is better at picking a token opposition voice than Fox News is.

Tell me all about it.

18:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The whole point of this section of this discussion shows there is non-fringe criticism of SPLC coming from non-RS but significant sources that should be taken into account in evaluating the SPLC as a reliable source or not; unfortunately, editors seem to want to dismiss that by disputing the authority of the sources, or similar. We need to be well aware of the whole picture before we can actually make such determinations, even if the entirety of the big picture cannot be used within WP's main-space directly. --Masem (t) 22:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there's non-fringe criticism, but the problem is that the criticism boils down to "I don't agree with the SPLC because they undermine my political position". That's not meaningful criticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect (and I do respect your opinion -- a lot) is there any possibility that you are being influenced -- perhaps unconsciously -- by the fact that the SPLC supports your political position? Or by the great work that they did before (some claim) they lost their way? (And I would argue that they are still doing great work along with falsely labeling innocent people as hate groups.) Just as a favor to me, could I ask you to read What Happens When Your Town Lands on the Hate Map: You freak out. You try and clear your name. You get nowhere. as if you had never before heard of the SPLC? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, in the current world of identity politics, ad hominem attacks become par for the course. A point I've made elsewhere, but far too frequently the RSes of today start off talking about a person/group whose positions they don't agree with by labeling the person/group with terms like far-right/etc. (which proliferates to our articles as well, unfortunately), so that they can then argue to dismiss the person/group's points without actual debate. The SPLC plays into that a great deal, which is a further reason we should always attribute such labels. --Masem (t) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Sure, anything's possible. But it's just as possible that you are biased due to the SPLC undermining your own political views. The only way to know which of us is biased (or more biased) is to examine how our arguments here differ from our arguments on subjects in which we are known to be disinterested. To that end, I might point out that I've never seen you push a whataboutism before, but then there's your Antifa argument, above...

As for the article: I read it, again. I agree that it takes a dim view of the SPLC's output, even going so far as to engage in skepticism where it was clearly not warranted (given the relative populations of Alabama and California, for example, I personally am not the least bit surprised that the latter has far more hate groups. I am, however, surprised that this hadn't occurred to the author of this piece.)

But in the end, it's worth noting that Gurnee is no longer on the list, and that no part of the process actually slandered the town in the way the article supposed it did. My own hometown (the one I grew up in), for example, is well-known for it's support and celebration of LGBT people, yet still has two hate groups located in it according to the SPLC. Does that mean those hate groups don't exist? No, it doesn't. The Hate map is a resource that shows where certain groups are headquartered or concentrated. That's it. Sometimes it will be wrong, sometimes right. But the SPLC tells us exactly what it is, so the onus is on the people using it to know how to use it. In short, let me quote the article itself: "Given the low threshold for inclusion on the list, perhaps it is not so surprising that it would on occasion pull in some towns with otherwise unblemished reputations."

Tell me all about it.

14:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• SPLC’s activities have long generated ... ongoing political controversy.... It has been charged with exaggerating the threat of racism for purposes of fund-raising [and with] wrongfully applying the term hate group to legitimate organizations. "Southern Poverty Law Center", Encyclopaedia Britannica, January 9, 2017 (accessed from Bing). Inference: As of January 2017, its reputation for accuracy was somewhat checkered. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 05:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 17:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To be more accurate, its reputation has been questioned, thats not the same as stating it is somewhat checkered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Its reputation has been questioned and damaged by disinterested publications - like the Atlantic ("How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of ‘Anti-Muslim Extremists’?") and Politico Magazine ("Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? ... Is it overstepping its bounds?"). --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it has been criticized for certain actions by those disinterested parties. The notion that the SPLC must be above reproach in order to be considered reliable is spurious.

Tell me all about it.

14:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• If every source that entered a single controversy or had a handful of articles questioning it became unreliable, we would have no usable sources left. The fact that critics of the SPLC continue to focus on a single incident (and seem unable to find anything else) shows that it has, on the whole, lived up to its reputation; and the fact that many reputable publications continue to rely on it shows that it enjoys the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that a
  WP:RS requires. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 18:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• As I mentioned below, if we're going to perform our own analysis we have to consider how the SPLC is cited in academia. In effect, every time it is used as the source for a factual statement in a peer-reviewed paper, both the author and (much more importantly) the journal is attesting to the SPLC's reliability as a source. The extent to which it continues to be used as a source - and near-complete absence of any mention of the controveries people are mentioning above, which some editors are trying to argue had a meaningful impact on the SPLC's reputation - shows that it still enjoys the strong reputation that
  WP:RS and there's nothing left to discuss" sense - having a controversy about a major, high-profile, frequently-cited organization have no sign of impact a year later is a pretty clear indicator that it was just a blip, at least in terms of the organization's overall reputation. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 04:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • However, one thing I'm not seeing - and this is partially without having full access to journals and can only look at what Google Scholar gives as blurbs, none of the hits on the first several pages are sourcing SPLC to say "X is a hate group". They are using other factors from the SPLC - how many hate crime incidents there were in a year, how many groups they've called hate groups, etc. Things that are factual in context of "this is what the SPLC does". What I've never seen in any of these academic journals saying, plainly "X is a hate group" and then provide no attribute but cite SPLC. (Also, "peer-reviewed" does not equal "fact", only that, from an academic standpoint, whatever hypothesis and resulting conclusion reached is sound for that field, and thus has regard as a RS) --Masem (t) 23:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

how many groups they've called hate groups, etc. I would like to point out that SPLC's count of hate groups of based on all the individual groups SPLC has labelled hate groups. A reference to their count is an inescapable endorsement of their claims as a rule. It's arguably much more persuasive that the individual citations you couldn't find. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Attribution is not always an endorsement (otherwise, WP would be dead in the water). It does always establish what an authority has said, and then generally leaving it to the reader to figure out how to take that word. Attribution may be used as endorsement, but it also may be used as ridicule (see how many of Trump's "facts" are taken that way); that part depends on context, which I can't tell from context. We're still able to use statements ourselves like "SPLC reported there were X hate groups in YYYY." due to their authority on the topic. --Masem (t) 01:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Masters' theses are not considered reliable sources. However, note that the author says that the SPLC's classifications are considered authoritative in reliable sources. He argues they should not be. TFD (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Masters' theses are perfectly acceptable as outside opinions on a talk page full of opinions by anonymous Wikipedia users, none of which are reliable sources. Please don't apply criteria meant for for articles to talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Works published before / after year Y

Base articles on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The word "source" can mean the work itself - not just its creator. (WP:SOURCE policy.)

The SPLC's older work did and does have a reputation for accuracy; its work published after September 2016 doesn't have a reputation for accuracy. Discuss. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Reject per

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as with all such issues, it depends on context both before and after 2016. Alanscottwalker (talk

) 14:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Point taken. For example, SPLC material (old or new) is categorically unreliable for statements about the KKK, Aryan Nations, and some other white supremacist groups. Also for statements about Nawaz.

Authority: COI SOURCES policy at Verifiability §§ Questionable sources. COI SOURCES include "material ... released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, before, during, or after the litigation". --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No. You first have to identify specifically what it is you want to say in any article based on the source being used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

SELFSOURCE), in any article. --Dervorguilla (talk

) 19:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No. The Maajid Nawaz article does use statements from the SPLC about Nwaz. Again what matters is the context, and for that you have to give what content you want to add and the source. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and raised this question at Talk:Maajid Nawaz. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Whatever people decide there can't overrule anything here. It's nonsense to say that you can't use the SPLC ever as a source for the KKK because of its civil rights lawsuits. The SPLC is a !"$! law center! It conducts lawsuits. Of course that doesn't disqualify us from using it as a source. Maybe the footnote quoted needs clarifying, because I'm sure it was never meant to cover this sort of issue. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

In each case, the lawsuits result from of the SPLC's statements about the groups or individuals in question, whether they were filed by the SPLC or the party in question. The suggestion that those lawsuits retroactively make the SPLC's claims unreliable is laughable. It's akin to suggesting that a legal conviction proves that a convict was unfairly railroaded by the prosecution.

Tell me all about it.

19:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

In 2014 they used a graduate student who was a free-lance writer to do an article on the 20 year veteran of The New York Times science section calling him an embracer of scientific racism. That same article calls a university professor from Northern Ireland's largest university a white supremacist. [28]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

So? You mean they published a review of a book that the New York Times when it reviewed that same book of its former science writer said, "The result is a deeply flawed, deceptive and dangerous book." [29] People review books, so what? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals". Does anyone really consider some graduate student trying to make an extra buck on the same level as a 20 year veteran of the newspaper that has won the most Pulitzer Prizes. And just because a reliable source makes the same claim as an unreliable source it doesn't make the unreliable source reliable unless used as the source for the reliable source, for example quite a lot on Wikipedia is right but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also this post is from 2014 which is before the alleged drop in accuracy standards. Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Other reviews call it scientific racism,[30] and as for Richard Lynn, there are good reasons for describing him as a white supremacist. What's wrong with them using his review? Doug Weller talk 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not accepting nor rejecting what other sources have said about the book or Lynn, but I am saying is some graduate student looking to make an extra buck an RS. The fact that a source is right doesn't make it an RS, fair chunk of Wikipedia is right but if you tried to use it as a reference at university or a newspaper you would probably get laughed at. The point of this is that this is what the SLPC have used prior this alleged accuracy decrease in 2016. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

So you aren't questioning its accuracy, you just don't like the fact that the SPLC asked a grad student familiar with the field to do a book review. And that somehow related to the SPLC's accuracy in 2014 even if the review is accurate. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not a matter of liking or disliking. What matters is how the SPLC operate in recent years, but this incident takes before the alleged decrease in accuracy from 2016. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable vs authoritative

One of the things coming to mind from comments above is that we have to differentiate between a reliable source and an authoritative one in a given topic and context, as a source may be one but not the other - or may be both or neither. For instance, in film, Roger Ebert was absolutely an authoritative source on films. His reviews carried weight. But that doesn't make him a reliable source - just because he said a film was good doesn't mean we factually state "the film was good". That's in part because reviewing a film is very subjective, there's no fixed checklist that has to be checked off to show the film is good, that's just how Ebert rated it. That's where its important for labels, which by definition are normally subjective.

SPLC is absolutely an authoritative source when it comes to classifying what are hate groups, etc. though with the recent stuff on Nawaz tarnishes that a bit - most source still seek out the SPLC's statement to include that when writing articles on a group. But because SPLC doesn't showcase any objective mannerisms to how they call out a group as a hate group or other label. They provide evidence and justify why they believe it is, which is why they are part of why they are considered authoritative (they do their homework) but that doesn't mean they can be considered reliable for that label. It makes them a useable source under RSOPINION and reasonable to include with attribution, but never as fact.

(Separately, I remember there was debate about an SPLC report that documented the number of white nationalist statues in the wake of the Unite the Right confrontation. The matter was mostly objective since the origin of the statues had been well-documented and stood the test of time. The fact that SPLC did their homework to classify the origins of each statue as to determine if they were nationalist or not means they were reliable for that purpose, even if that point was something aligned with their ideological agenda. This is why context matters). --Masem (t) 22:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the distinction you make between “reliable” and “authoritative”. This goes back to what I have been saying about phrasing things as Opinion vs fact. The opinion of the SPLC as to a bio subject’s reputation carries a LOT of weight... it does matter, and it should be mentioned... but that opinion needs to be phrased as BEING opinion and not stated as fact in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would say that it's still reliable. It does provide a description of how they categorize a hate group, for instance. It is perhaps not a top-tier source, but there's a huge range between "absolutely perfect" and "not reliable", and I don't think it's reasonable to try and put them in the latter category given their reputation. The key point to me (as you acknowledge) is that many, many indisputably reliable mainstream news sources will still treat a hate-group designation by the SPLC as a fact; this shows that they still have the basic reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that
  WP:NPOV requirement to avoid stating facts as opinions. They're sufficiently reliable that uncontested statements by them should be treated as facts in the article voice. (Caveat: Given the impact and significance of such a label, it's reasonable to ask for more than one source provided the topic is high-profile enough that one could be presumed to exist. But the SPLC is usable as such a source, and reliable high-quality secondary sources that cite the SPLC but which unequivocally treat their description as fact also qualify for this, since they're adding their weight to its own.) --Aquillion (talk
  ) 18:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • To me it still comes down to recognizing that regardless of how many RSes apply a label to a person or group in the short term, that label is a subjective designation and must be attributed, even if that attribution is effectively "Everyone and their brother says X is Y." Labels can only become factual through the test of time, where secondary review and other factors allow for a more objective assessment if the label term still holds up, knowing that the broad ideologies shift over time, and the meaning of these labels shift with those ideological shifts; time gives analysts the ability to normalize out the effect of those ideological shifts on analyzing the label's appropriateness. But until that long-term review happens, then even if the SPLC's designation is backed by the NYTimes, WaPost and 20 other major newspapers, we should still be attributing that in-line to stay consistent with NPOV. I'll still support the fact that SPLC is an authoritative source and if they categorized a group as a hate group, and at least one other RS has acknowledged that (to avoid the UNDUE), then the SPLC's categorization should be unquestionably included, just with attribution. They clearly meet RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 14:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• To all reading this thread: This is what an argument between liberals and conservatives look like. When you venture into an American Politics article talk page, or go off site and see how this sort of discussion is held on sites like reddit, and you witness there the vitriolic hatred, empty rhetoric and hollow chest thumping that passes for political debate in those place, please recall this conversation and know that politics doesn't necessarily have to be a battlefield, but can, in fact, be an honest exchange of ideas across the political spectrum, in the sincere effort to arrive at something resembling truth.
  Tell me all about it.
  21:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem's distinction. For an article about a group/person, including SPLC's opinion with attribution is fine. But one concerning trend is that editors often include SPLC designations in secondary topics which only mention those groups/people. To avoid violating
  WP:SNYTH, if a group/person is mentioned in relation to a topic, then SPLC's designation for the group should only be mentioned if significant secondary RS about that topic also mention the SPLC designation. -- Netoholic @
  22:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that that's something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is
    WP:RS ourselves, even if there is a significant minority in the media who have recently been trying to raise objections to the degree of indisputable trust that the organization enjoys. Basically, I feel that many people in this thread are arguing about how they feel the SPLC should be viewed rather than how it actually is (and are citing sources and articles that, to me, seem largely written from "this is how it should be viewed", with a tacit acknowledgement that how it is actually viewed, right now, is with broad trust.) Either way, overall, the controversies mentioned above to not seem to have significantly impacted its academic reputation. In fact, a year out from the event, while I could find vast amounts of citations to the SPLC that clearly treated it as a trustworthy and reliable source, I could find only one source from this year that even mentioned the controversies described above - and that only in passing. This supports my general reading that it was a blip that a few people who have long-opposed the SPLC used in an unsuccessful attempt to damage its reputation. --Aquillion (talk
    ) 04:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Insofar as this discussion is about SPLC (!), I agree with Masem, that there are groups such as SPLC (+ Amnesty? Red Cross? Who else?), whose opinion is sufficiently authorative, (not the same as 'reliable') that an attributed claim would usually warrant inclusion. My one original addition to this discussion is to ask the question "why on WP is attribution seen as synomymous with weasel-ling"? Rather than as an opportunity for being informative? Perhaps it relates to my innate scepticism as a reader, but I would always prefer to read that "Theory XYZ about the creation of the universe is dismissed by mainstream science as pseudoscience because ABC", rather than "XYZ is a pseudoscientific belief". OK at one end of the spectrum, no one is going to say "historians L, M and N claim that A Hitler was anti-semetic", but even in a ludicrously obvious example of that sort - saying (briefly) why AH is thought to be A-S, is informative, simply applying the label less so. Interestingly though, the Hitler article uses antisemetic once (not about AH himself) - it relates his grisly life story without once using the most obvious adjective. I believe we should be more ready to attribute, and more ready to acknowledge that, even if SPLC (or similar) are very scrupulous in their methodology, a judgement (ie an informed opinion), is fallible, but neither wholly 'subjective' nor wholly 'reliable' in the sense that we mean 'factual' - they base their judgements on the best available facts, but that cannot make the judgements themselves factual. A practical application of this applies in many of the peripheral article relating to the War on Terror - main articles are pretty good, but I spent months cleaning up articles which said "Slaughter the Crusaders is an Islamic terrorist org", when they should have said "Slaughter the Crusaders is an Islamic org which is described by the CIA, MI6 and the UN as ....". The reader should be given more credit IMO for being able to distinguish for themselves whether a claim-maker is credible.Pincrete (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had this issue before with editors, and it comes down a lot to how one reads the YESPOV elements in light of how one sees a topic, which starts to get way past the RS/N. The logic is of the 3rd bullet point there, that we are not supposed to report facts as opinions, so that if every major newspaper and the like assert "This group is a hate group", then it must be fact and using attribution is weaseling that away. But the 3rd bullet point there continues to say Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. By their very nature, labels like "hate group" are controversial, so this bullet point should never apply, so to that end, that's where attribution should be applied per the general approach of YESPOV. I've explained above that after enough time has passed like decades, where academics and the like can consider the situation in a very secondary manner, that then labels can be applied factually, like the case of the Aryan Nation or the Ku Klux Klan. We should be attributing anything that has a subjective spin on it even if there appears to be no apparent disagreement to that subjectivity. --Masem (t) 13:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, but even with clear-cut examples like KKK, it is inherently more informative to (briefly) say what about the KKK led them to be characterised by whatever term we deem most apt, why mainstream medicine rejects a particular practice, why scientists reject a theory. Simply verifying that X sources use a descriptor tells me little. As you say though, way beyond RSN! Pincrete (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Australian newspaper

What article by what author for which claim in which article, please review Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed by Fifelfoo. Please do not modify it.
I am wondering what editors opinion is as to The Australian newspaper being a reliable source for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles. Any opinions welcome.Merphee (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC) No you're not. You're trying to prove I was wrong when I suggested The Australian is at the far right of Australia's mainstream media, and gives Liberal Party politicians far kinder treatment than those from the Australian Labor Party. And you didn't like being pointed at The Australian#Editorial and opinion pages, ridiculously alleging that I wrote that section of the article. A little honesty and a touch of reality would help here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Of course you wrote that section of the article HiLo or at least the part which you used your extremist far far far left The Monthly dedicated Labor Party magazine as a reliable source. But then you claim one of the most widely read newspapers in Australia http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/Top50/Top50-CurrentAustralia.htm and one of the most respected is not reliable! Wow. I will also be adding some balance to your edits on The Australian article soon. However I posted this here to determine if The Australian newspaper is so incredibly biased as you say and can't be used as a reliable source.Merphee (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC) I really should ignore you, but please provide evidence of "most widely read newspaper in Australia". HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) This relates to secondary sources say otherwise (that is, they identify real-world and enduring effects). Johnuniq (talk ) 05:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC) what article by what author for which claim in which article? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Again Johnuniq you try and downplay the importance of her deleting all of her social media posts and why so many reliable and respected sources wrote large news stories on Husar. The reason it is notable is that it contributed to the Australian Labor Party developing a policy whereby candidates are banned from using social media prior to elections. As far as one of the posts she deleted among many others was her hugging the big condom and says more about her personality and character but is irrelevant to this discussion. And why I posted here is that one of the sources which reported on that ALP policy and Husar's connection to it, was The Australian newspaper reported on how Husar and a couple of other ALP candidates led to the new policy being formed. As far as her latest controversy regarding her using her staff as slaves and bullying them, intimidating them, harassing them and causing 20 of them to leave is in every major newspaper and media channel in the country and will either lead to her being sued for workplace bullying or losing her job, or both. So yeah it is notable Johnuniq. There's no question about that current controversy being included in her article. Or are you actually arguing that her bullying should be censored from her article too?Merphee (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Wow, that's a stream of reliable secondary sources publish an analysis showing some long-term significance. Do not suggest what I'm arguing—just read what I wrote. Johnuniq (talk ) 09:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Not getting into the details of the specific dispute, but The Australian is a Rupert Murdoch owned paper and naturally has a right wing bias, but so is The Times and nobody would seriously object to that newspaper being cited. The site mediabiasfactcheck.com rates The Australian as Right-Center bias, factual reporting high. So in principle there is no reason it can't be used as a RS. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Of course, anything might be reliable as verification for some text in some article. That's why the edit notice seen when adding a comment here says that source and article and content are required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC) As with other papers in the Murdoch stable, 'The Australian' has a paywall system. A few articles are accessible soon after publication, but most are not, which makes it extremely difficult to gauge the full range of views expressed &, therefore, comment on its ongoing reliability as a source. I'd put it, with other strongly-pay-walled sites, in the category of 'unknown' on RS due to restricted access. AnonNep (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry that's a nonsense argument. Paywalls are irrelevant for reliability purposes. You might as well say you can't gauge if a publisher is reliable because it charges for its books. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC) As a former (Australian) Librarian, I can tell you that most Library services (not library branches within a service) buy a copy of popular Australian & overseas book titles. Others can be obtained on (slightly costly) Inter-Library-Loan (cost dependent on whether item can be sourced from another local library service or academic/specialist). Many Library branches have daily newspaper subscriptions &, with a time window, much older copies are available on Library card based (often in-house Library only) digital subscription services. 'The Australian' isn't, from my recollection, a must-have, in-house, daily paper subscription for many library branches. (NB. This doesn't necessarily apply to historic events that can be found, for free, via Library card, on archives.) If readership is limited to those who like content so much they pay for it then how can anyone else independently evaluate content for RS? Who else has access to evaluate it? AnonNep (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Well, it might be an argument for AnonNep being unable to assess its reliability, but that isn't the same as "its reliability cannot be assessed." Obviously, sources are not required to be available for free, or even available online at all. --tronvillain (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC) So, lets just leave evaluation of RS sources to those cashed up enough to buy/subscribe to everything. Can you see any eventual problems with that in a world of paywalls? AnonNep (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC) Feel free to try and change WP:VERIFY. Good luck. --tronvillain (talk ) 17:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC) I don't need to. I'm just pointing out the obvious. This will be an ongoing issue (not just in relation to Australian paywalls). AnonNep (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC) You know, you really don't need entire extra sentences in talk/noticeboard page edit summaries. --tronvillain (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC) If by obvious you mean 'describing how WP:V has worked since its inception' then I suppose yes, its an ongoing non-issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (the 'Off-Guardian letter')

{{BLP noticeboard}}. Thank you. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary, second edition (OED2) superseded, no longer RS?

A few months ago I cited the OED2 for etymology, earliest recorded use of a term, in the

WP:AGEMATTERS

) that the OED2 is considered to have been superseded by the (online, subscription-only) OED3, which doesn't contain the information (I don't know why not, I don't have access). Is that correct? The OED2 is not a reliable source if it's different from the OED3? Should we stop citing the OED2?

I had written:[31] "However, the earliest known use of shish kebab in English is 1914, from the novel Our Mr. Wrenn, in a passage describing a meal in an Armenian restaurant in New York City." and used <ref>{{cite OED2|shish kebab}}</ref>. The OED2 gives the first use as: 1914 S. Lewis Our Mr. Wrenn ii. 26 I'm sure you'll like shish kebab." --IamNotU (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that unless the OED3 contained information that directly contradicted OED2, then the OED2 is a perfectly respectable RS for the particular use. The ommision of information from the later edition, does not render the earlier information incorrect. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I checked only the free version [32] which gives a brief etymology that matches what's in the article - but this is not really an etymology issue and it shouldn't be cited to a dictionary in any case. Especially where stronger sources don't say anything about it Gil Marks. Marks also places the date at 1913, not 1914. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This paper from Neophilologus also puts the introduction into English in 1914 by Lewis. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

As does the current OED. See shish kabab (subscription required). Have posted the details on article talk page. Abecedare (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

WP:DICTIONARIES, see also this older discussion and summary at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Oxford English Dictionary and Fascism. Why would Marks' Encyclopedia of Jewish Food (which doesn't actually contradict the OED, because all he wrote was that it's "a term adopted in English around 1913") be considered a "stronger source"? And why would Marks not saying anything about Lewis' book somehow render the OED incorrect? --IamNotU (talk

) 06:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a better source. However, the issue is giving that particular attestation in the OED a whole lot of undue weight. "Earliest attestation in the OED" is not the same as "earliest use". Just because that particular novel by Sinclair Lewis is the earliest attestation the OED editors found in their corpus doesn't mean it was the first actual use in English, or even the first use in English in print, or anything like that. Giving all those details about the book, including the information about the particular scene and context, is quite irrelevant to the article and may even falsely suggest to the naive reader that Lewis was the one who actually first introduced the word to English (which is almost certainly not the case). What the OED attestation does mean, if read correctly, is that 1914 is a realistic approximate terminus ante quem, so we can safely say that the word came into English "in the early 20th century" or something like that – and on this account, both the OED and that Encyclopedia of Jewish Food are quite in agreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"Earliest recorded use". Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I also checked the pocket version of OED, which gives the etymology but not the English language attestations. The etymology is not based on "first literary use in English" - this is a different issue. For example the etymology of genocide is Greek, the etymology of murder -if you've done serious work on Medieval English legal etymologies (which I have) I think you would understand my position that the dictionary can be given too much weight. In this case for shish the earliest recorded known use is an 11th century Turkic lexicon that was compiled by Mahmud al-Kashgari. For something like murder, it's even harder because there is relatively more detailed English language scholarship on the compilation of the manuscripts by the Church and their purported origins - certainly the dictionary is a starting off point, but there should be stronger sourcing and a bit more context to make a claim about etymology.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, the OED is RS for what it says, here. But right now the article is odd, because of the way it is structured: the current article has two sections, which would suggest the the subject shish kebab is about two things 'Etymology' and 'Use in literature'. For something you eat, really? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, someone should consider expanding it. I've tagged the literature section for expansion. I actually had trouble finding this article because shish is apparently also an acronym for the Albanian intelligence agency. Maybe others also had this problem - I'll add a hatnote there also.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add to this that the changes between OED1, 2 and 3 are in most cases very few (rather disgracefully so, imo), though this is obviously less the case for "new" words. The vast majority of words that were in OED1 are completely untouched in OED3, though they have finally started (in the middle of the alphabet, working outwards) the first systematic revision. Insofar as the OED is an RS, the edition usually matters not at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate is someone could email me the entry. I strongly object to OED being used as a sole source for etymology (as opposed to currently accepted definitions of words, for which it is undoubtedly RS). I've seen cases where OED represents very contentious disputes in background scholarship in a very one-sided way like the entry for murder Even under Edward I, Britton explains the AF. murdre only as felonious homicide of which both the perpetrator and the victim are unidentified. - While this is technically a true statement, the Anglo-French presentment of Englishry was a post-Norman practice where the guilt of the entire commons was presumed unless it could be proved that the victim was English (not Norman)—even in cases where no specific murderer was identified the fine was levied against the entire common. This is a long way off from secret murder in Anglo-Saxon England—OED's attempt to link this post-Conquest practice to the Anglo-Saxon usage is a long way off from widely accepted by background expert sources. As a source for etymology as opposed to currently accepted definitions, I think OED should always be checked against background scholarship. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this more about the history of the definition rather than the etymology as such? Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am being a bit unfair to OED—murder is an extremely difficult word, and its etymology would include a discussion of how its meaning has changed over time. For that, OED by itself would not be enough. On the whole OED is of course a very high quality and useful source, but I see it more as a starting off point. I agree with comments made during this discussion that it also leaves one wondering if Sinclair Lewis introduced the word shish kebab into the English language. I want to see if I can find additional sources that say more —it's also interesting because by the 20th century British English and American English were pretty differentiated, so does it enter the language in both places at the same time?Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• It is important to remember that “reliable” does NOT mean “definitive”. Is the OED reliable? Yes. Is it definitive? Well, it probably comes close... but ultimately, no. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"First published use known to the OED" is not the same as "first use." In fact, the term "shish kebab" was pretty much known before 1914 for anyone going to a Turkish/Armenian/etc. restaurant at all pre WWI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebab#History is interesting, but not a definitive claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_in_the_United_Kingdom Armenians had a community in England by about 1870. "Kebab" was used in English by 1783. "Shish" is an adjective here - and is almost certainly the same root as "shashlik" which well antedates 1914 (possibly 16th century). The OED does not use old menus as a source, as a rule. The claim should be "The term 'shish kebab' had its first literary publication in English in 1914." Collect (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all the comments! Great information about the differences (or lack thereof) between versions of the OED. I've also been considering the comments about "first known use". I had written that, as opposed to the word 'kebab' by itself, which has a much longer history, "the earliest known use of shish kebab in English is 1914...". In relation to etymology and word origins, the phrase "earliest known use" or "first known use" is fairly standard; the latter seems to be somewhat more common. Recorded sometimes replaces known. The American Heritage Dictionary gives a definition of etymology as "1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning...". Merriam-Webster entries give dates for "first known use", and they explain the meaning of that here: [33], including "This is the date of the earliest recorded use in English, as far as it could be determined, of the oldest sense defined in the entry" and "The date most often does not mark the very first time that the word was used in English. Many words were in spoken use for decades or even longer before they passed into the written language. The date is for the earliest written or printed use that the editors have been able to discover." Several commenters have noted this above. It seems to me that this is a common term, and doesn't require a long-winded explanation in the "Etymology" section of every article. On the other hand, a person who doesn't understand what "first known use" means, in relation to a dictionary entry, is even less likely to know what the far less common term "first literary use" (as used earlier in the article for the Turkish word) should mean; the OED for example records usage in newspaper articles, which the average person probably doesn't include in their understanding of "literary use". Perhaps the etymology article should have a section about the concept of "first known use" that could be linked to?

I don't see any reason that "first known use" shouldn't be considered a valid issue to cover in an etymology section, that it shouldn't be cited to a dictionary such as the OED or M-W (though I can see that using "according to" might be prudent), or mention the particular document it was found in. The usual rules of undue weight do apply, but citing the first known use is not a claim that the document is the etymological origin or introduction of the word to the language. I'd feel better about citing the "earliest attestation in a published work according to the OED" (or "the OED's first recorded/known use", etc.), than making a claim that e.g. "the word came into English in the early 20th century". "Kabob" for Turkish shish kebab had been in limited use since at least a century earlier (see [34]), and I'm not confident saying that "shish" was never used together with it until the 20th. It might be better to risk being overweight on a particular attestation, than introduce an unsourced conjecture... Anyway, thanks again for all the input! --IamNotU (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I will implement Collect's suggestion instead. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Shish kebab" seems to have been used as a verb in the 1895 Yearbook of Agriculture (US Government Printing Office) in a casual way that suggests it was an established term, "... may be designed to smoke only or to smoke-cook and roast, barbecue, steam and/or shish kebab."[35] More generally, though Google Book searches of this sort[36] are

WP:OR, they can help test readings of dictionary examples as "first use" (e.g. correcting Boredom[37]). IMHO, early OED compilers wanted to show the use of words over time rather than esablish first use. 80.41.129.233 (talk

) 13:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Search that book for refrigerator, supermarket etc, and you'll see that that is no book from 1895. Google Books has it mis-labeled and it is probably a scan of this 1982 book. Abecedare (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and no one was saying it was unused or even uncommon before the literature use - it seems unlikely that the author would have used it had no one, including him had ever heard it. 'According to the OED' is just what's assumed, and yes they used whatever technology was available to them to do their homework, at the time. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And with regards to the edit to Boredom: given that the author James Payn was born in 1830, it is hardly likely that he published the book From Exile in 1835. That is probably just the year the publisher Chatto & Windus was established, which the scanners at Google Books mistakenly took to be the year of publication. Note that the library cover lists the year of the book as 1890, and its early pages include ads for The Way We Live Now by Anthony Trollope, which we know was published in 1875.

Thanks Abecedare, I see you're right about the Yearbook of Agriculture and Payn. My apologies. I'm still glad we no longer say the first recorded appearance of 'boredom' was in 1852, given that Thackeray used it in The Irish Sketch Book in 1842 and Templeton's Diary and Notes was published in 1848. Google Books got that much right.[38] Alanscottwalker, I'd only argue that generally 'according to the OED, it was first used' would be an error; that's not what the dictionary claims. 'Was used in yyyy' or 'was used as early as yyyy', citing the OED, would be unarguable. 80.41.129.233 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll add that the OED once again encourages information on "antedating", though I think it is usually just filed until the revising editors reach that word. They remain obsessed by new words. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Are The Daily Dot and Tubefilter reliable sources?

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105 § Daily Dot revisited

The two potentially reliable sources used in the

WP:N if anyone cares to offer one. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT

) 06:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Tubefilter seems more like an industry publication, and a lot of their content is fluffy promotional stuff. The Daily Dot is a solid source for internet culture/tech issues. They have a fact-checking and corrections policy (available online), and their reporting appears to be trusted by other reliable sources like Snopes or the Guardian. That said, Daily Dot is also a niche publication itself market themselves on covering stuff that conventional press doesn't pick up. So that probably makes it a poor guage of notability. If Onision is only covered in these two sources, I'd say it's a pretty good indicator that he doesn't meet

WP:N Nblund ^talk

21:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Xona's Colorlist

As part of a project to determine whether entries are valid in several lists of colors, e.g. List_of_colors:_A–F, I noticed that 20 or so entries use Xona's Colorlist as a reference.

For example:

• Amazon - found in Jungle green
• Bubbles - found in Baby blue
• Jordy blue - found in Azure (color)

Does this qualify as a reliable source? (I searched the archives for "Xona" and did not get a hit).--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• In early HTML web development color charts were very useful (circa 90's to early 00's) but this could be an early reference that's no longer needed. I don't see how "When the Xona.com Color List was formulated in 2001, "Amazon" was included as one of the colors." is useful in Jungle green. Will stand corrected but appears to be a (nostalgic) but dated ref. It was first added [39], without source, in 2011, by the page creator who fought off attempts to have the page included into a 'Green' article sub-cat at least twice. Ping @Keraunos: as article creator & editor of link, if they're still around. AnonNep (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Neurotree

Is Neurotree a reliable source? If not, it should be removed from at least the BLPs in which it is being used now, such as Richard W. Tsien, Amy Bastian, and Ed Connor. Honestly I was surprised to find that no discussion of this website had previously taken place here when I searched the archives. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says "Neurotree and Academic Family Tree are volunteer-run; accuracy is maintained by a group of volunteer editors". I have not looked deeply into this but that doesn't sound like an RS to me, however it would depend on the volunteers qualifications. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Is ArchDaily a reliable source?

1. Link to past discussion of the source on this board: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#Opinions on "ArchDaily" as a RS.
2. Source: https://www.archdaily.com/
3. Article in which it is being used: Palace of the Parliament.
4. Diff in which it is used: [40].
5. Original citation website in the diff: [41]

I have to point out that ArchDaily has been used as a source in the Washington Post [42] and the Chicago Tribune [43]. In addition, it claims to have an editorial team and to check for errors[44]. Thinker78 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly reliable for the statement of how it rated the Palace of the Parliament. I don't read Romanian so I would want to be sure that the rating was made by the magazine, not by the writer. If it was made by the magazine, then you should be able to find the claim made in English. Also, you need to establish the significance of the rating by showing that independent reliable sources reported on it. TFD (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If you use Google Chrome you just right-click on the page and click "translate to English". Thinker78 (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Original article, made by ArchDaily: https://www.archdaily.com/795913/white-elephants-over-budget-unsuccessful-and-embarrassing-architecture-projects-from-around-the-world . 81.101.159.55 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If the link doesn't work, please copy "link title" and then paste on a search engine.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

racked.com

Is racked.com as used on the page Goop (company) a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is a fairly general question; is there a particular concern about content that's in the article? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• I checked the four citations in that article, and they all appear to be generalized claims about the company that can probably be verified in other sources. I personally don't see an issue with Racked.com, however, as it is owned by Vox Media and has a publishing team consisting of a reporter, writer, editor, and senior editors. The articles cited may express some opinion at times, but they are professionally written. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this Original Research?

I was looking for the

article, by using reference notes or something? Thanks in advance. AG47 ^Talk

17:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard might be a better place to ask. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks AG47 ^Talk 09:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Lyrics from St. Louis Blues

Resolved

Joseph "Diamond Jo" Reynolds contains this line, "W. C. Handy includes a reference to the Diamond Joseph Line in his song "Saint Louis Blues": "You ought to see dat stove pipe brown of mine / Lak he owns de Dimon Joseph line." It seems that a lyric book would be a primary source. Here are some links from a web search: [45] [46]

Do I need to find a secondary source that says this line is a reference to the Diamond Jo Line? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be best to support it, and anway there are lots of sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Those hits are for lyric books. They only confirm the words of the song, but I did not find one that explains the meaning. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually the first hit (for me, anyway) explicitly says "Dimon Joseph line: Diamond Joe line of steamers (the owner was Joseph Reynolds), an Iowa business." And it's a page created by the library of a respected university, so it should be

WP:RS

. Google doesn't give the same answers for everyone so this might not have come up on your search. 01:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Good work. I was careless: I didn't see the notes. This looks great. thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Please evaluate Assim al-Hakeem

Hi,

I made significant revisions to

Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs}

) 04:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:DOB

and thanking people for birthday wishes on Twitter

There's a dispute about

Joseph Garrett and his date of birth. We have a source for a general age, cited to the BBC. Various editors have tried to add an unsourced birthday, resulting in the article becoming semi-protected. There's a discussion on my talk page about this now. If a verified account on Twitter posts "Thank you everyone that sent birthday messages. :)", is that proof that his birthday was on that day? NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 10:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

No it is proof of when he thanked everyone. Whilst it may be his birthday it may just be the day after when he had finally sobered up enough to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Well given he doesn't state what day it was, and there are birthday wishes from the 13th,14th and 15th, no. If a verified twitter account says something like 'it's my birthday today' then yes. Primary sources are valid sources for non contentious information about themselves, but it does have to be a clear statement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I made a little program that outputs links to Twitter searches for tweets around one's birthday for each year: https://jsfiddle.net/Wumbolo/xafLvqy2/64/ Change the variables to match the Twitter username and the "probable" date of birth, click run and if Twitter asks you something like if you want to redirect a search results page, click yes. There's a diff variable which allows you to check for tweets ranging +/- the "probable" DOB you specified. Enjoy! wumbolo ^^^ 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This reads like OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Searching for sources is not OR. wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Given that a twitter account holder who is concerned about identity theft might well give a false date of birth in their profile (and thus receive happy birthday wishes on that false date)... I don’t think Twitter can be considered a reliable source for date of birth... not even as a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point, it is what I advise my mentorees.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: is it also unreliable if the account holder explicitly tweets "today is my birthday"? wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say the tweet is reliable for “X tweeted that his birthday was on <date>“... but not for “X was born on <date>“. Today isn’t my birthday, but nothing prevents me from posting a tweet saying it is. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying thanks doesn't confirm when a birthday is or even the age on a date. An explicit mention on Twitter can be used a primary source under

WP:ABOUTSELF. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 18:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

www.thefamouspeople.com

I'm looking for some feedback on this website:

• https://www.thefamouspeople.com/

In particular with regard to biographic information on living people. I saw it being used as a reference for a date of birth and I'm wondering how reliable the biographic compilations of that side are as sources and authors seem unclear, which is usually a bad sign unless the site is known for its general reliability/has a good reputation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This Australian is sceptical. It's sloppy. It makes no effort to tell us where its "facts" come from. Precision is not its forte. There's plenty of Australians there, but they seem to be Australians some American(s) think are famous. The most famous sports people in half of Australian are Australian (rules) footballers. They are headline news almost every day. I found only one. I suspect he made it because he's Aboriginal. The section headed Australian footballers is actually about Australian soccer players. They describe people as rugby players, when they play rugby league. The contempt such descriptions would receive in the "better" schools of England would be palpable. It tells me that Kylie Minogue got her acting break in "Neighbor", and also in "Neighbors". No, it was "Neighbours". And any site that allows me to search, right from the start, by zodiac sign, loses my respect pretty quickly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Women in STEM fields

An IP has added a link from a conservative political group to

WP:PRIMARY source -- and a new one at that -- so not useable by itself. Thoughts? --Calton | Talk

14:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that being used a reference? If so then this is not really the place but rather Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and even then I think such a link was to be included it would be in a further reading section and not external links. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the üposter before that is formally a case for Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Having said that however the link seems clearly unsuited as a source or as further (online) reading/external links sections. Those are meant for authoritative and comprehensive texts on the article's subject and a conservative activist site of questionable quality hardly fits the bill. What you possibly could do however is simply listing the original scholarly article in the further reading section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll post in the External Links noticeboard -- which I didn't even know existed until now -- so further comments should go there. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Who Killed Osho by Abhay Vaidya, published by Om Books International 

In this diff another editor makes the assertion that the publisher of a book is not a reliable source.

Links. I searched and found no past discussions of either the book, Who Killed Osho? or the publisher, Om Books International.

Source. Abhay Vaidya (15 March 2017). Who Killed Osho. Om Books International. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Pages50-53 and 81-83.

Article. George Meredith (sannyasin)

Content. The exact statements in the article that the source supports:

1. His father was an army officer under the British Raj; his parents divorced when he was about four years old.

2. Brought up in the Church of England, Meredith had a "conventional upper middle-class" upbringing, attended public school, and was rugby captain at St Thomas' Hospital in London.

3. As Member of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom, Meredith had a medical practice in Lewisham and had served in 1974 as the medical head of a Kuwait hospital.

4. Abhay Vaidya describes the youthful Meredith as, "disillusioned with the Cold War, attracted by Communist ideology, and his readings in radical psychiatry and the break-up of families all around".

5. He found the Rajneesh's discourses about God refreshing, and admired his "deep understanding of the human mind".

6. Meredith believed the "meditations, therapies and advice" of the Rajneesh helped with "the search for meaning and an alternative to mainstream religions ...[he] found shallow".

7. Meredith "took sannyas" on April 24, 1978, and was then named, "Swami Devaraj".

8. by 1989 Meredith (then called Amrito) had become part of what Abhay Vaidya calls "The 1989 Coterie: Jayesh, Amrito & Anando".

9. According to Vaidya, "The suave and handsome British doctor Amrito was a key member of this coterie."

10. Vaidya describes Amrito's "seriously dubious reputation of engaging in questionable medical practices".

11. Some have suspected that Osho's "heavy medication" near his life's end had caused his death.

12. his second wife was Wendy (also called Devena), with whom he had a son, Deveda.

Given the principle that "Many sources are reliable for statement 'X,' but unreliable for statement 'Y' ", I believe the above statements written by a reputable journalist are reliable. I acknowledge that insofar as the premise of the book is that the Rajneesh (Osho) died under circumstances that have never been fully explained, some parts of the book are not neutral, so not reliable.

The immediate question I'd like help with is whether the publisher is not reliable, as the other editor has claimed. I have been unable to discern whether it may be a vanity press. I value any help offered. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grand'mere Eugene: I'll answer briefly, but since I'm already involved in the discussion in question, I hope an uninvolved editor will come along to reply as well. It seems to me the point in your final paragraph is the key one: If the publisher is a vanity press, that would certainly undercut both its value in establishing notability and its reliability in supporting factual statements, to some degree. However, as I stated in the discussion, the book is treated, rather explicitly, as a valid enterprise in reviews in the Hindu and the Hindustan Times, which I believe are both legitimate newspapers. I think it is unlikely that a book produced at the author's expense would have attracted such serious attention from major newspapers. Of course, if there is evidence that it is a vanity press, that should be considered, but I haven't seen any.

I also think every one of the statements you quote above is sufficiently non-controversial that using this as the only source for each of those claims is reasonable. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find any evidence that this is a reliable source. The publisher's domain is actually blocked at the office due to phishing, which is hardly a good sign. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• I too would suggest caution with this book. 'Om Books International' may or may not be just a vanity publisher, but it does not have any reputation for fact-checking or editorial control either. It's essentially a book retailer/distributor, which recently started publishing its own line of books. The articles in The Hindu, and The Hindustan Times, both appear to be lightly edited press-releases, with not a single sentence of critical appraisal evaluation; note too the common language in the pieces, as in:

The Hindu: the result of nearly three decades of reportage and is based on extensively recorded audio and video interviews with Osho’s closest followers and a mass of official documents, testimonies and press reports.

The Hindustan Times: the result of nearly three decades of reportage and investigative journalism and is based on extensively recorded audio and video interviews with Osho’s closest followers and a mass of official documents, testimonies and press reports.

Worldcat finds only two libraries holding the book (and that includes the LoC). Given the lack of quality reviews or any other "we can trust this source because..." indicators, I would avoid using this source. Abecedare (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• If no one objects, I will removing the source from this article soon. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I do object, as I indicated on the AfD for this article. I reiterate here that I would appreciate the opinions of other editors on the question of whether any of the statements above supported by Who Killed Osho? are controversial in nature, referring to the guideline that context matters. Thanks! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• The claim "Some have suspected that Osho's "heavy medication" near his life's end had caused his death" is unquestionably very controversial. This is effectively accusing someone (in this case a Dr) of causing someone's death by malice or incompetence. The text in the book does not even make this explicit, merely relying on someone's impression and the author's inference. Does the author have any medical expertise upon which to base such a suggestion - he doesn't make such known to us? Most of the other claims about biog details seem to be better sourced elsewhere anyway. It is only the very contentious ones which are unique to this book and a VERY good source should be used for such contentious claims. Pincrete (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Similarly, the claim "Vaidya describes Amrito's "seriously dubious reputation of engaging in questionable medical practices" turns out to be based simply on a blog allegation.. no other evidence is offered within the book for this claim. Pincrete (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

BuzzFeed (yes, I know - again)

Buzzfeed seems to be a frequent topic here. Unfortunately, I could not find anything definitive in the archives. The most recent reference of use seems to indicate that BuzzFeed should not be used as reliable secondary source in a BLP. So - apologies for bringing it up again.

Issue at hand is the article on Astrophysicist Guinevere Kauffmann. A month ago BuzzFeed posted a hit piece on her, accusing Kauffman of Racism and bullying based on anonymous sources and the purported existence of email of unclear origins. The allegations basically center around Kauffmann admonishing her grad students in a blunt and not nice fashion.

Buzzfeed is basically the only source for that. (Kauffman since gave an Interview to Nature, which then also published an assorted editorial). I protested the Buzzfeed link and anything sourced by it, since I consider them a clickbait mill without any shred of journalistic ethics. An IP disagreed, vehemently, bringing up Pulitzer Price nominations and similar claims. So, where do we stand with Buzzfeed these days? Wefa (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed's image/listicle-heavy main site, needs to be distinguished from its Buzzfeed News division. The former is clickbait-y and seldom/never appropriate as a reference for BLPs, while the latter has a good reputation. This is especially true for the latter's investigative pieces which have won or been nominated for some of the top awards in the field (see How BuzzFeed built an investigative team inside a viral hit factory).

So yes, the article is a reliable source for the subject though, as always, due consideration has to be given on how it is summarized and how much weight it is given. Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"Allegations" require better sources than "Nature" via "Buzzfeed." At this point, the BLP is way heavily weighted to saying the person is an evil racist. I knew Professors who were far more judgmental that she is being accused of being. Giving 60% of a BLP to the issue is not sane. Collect (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree largely with Collect. If there were multiple sources on this, then the Buzzfeed news one would be perfectly useable (as Abecedare explains above, there is a reason Buzzfeed doesnt have anything definitive in the archives, each use has to be assessed on its own merits). As it is, it seems an issue of

WP:UNDUE weight rather than BLP. If its only buzzfeed and no one else has picked up on it, it doesnt make them unreliable, it just means the event itself isnt particularly notable. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 13:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

After taking a closer look, it does appear this was covered in paper news (Der Spiegel) before buzzfeed identified the person concerned. Physicsworld has some more information. This appears to be the original Der Spiegel story. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is a RS.

talk

) 13:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But there's still the fact that part of Buzzfeed is clickbaity, and its not clear how much of a fence there is between the serious news side and the clickbait-y side. It's fine for straight forward, non-contentious news and even backing controversial pieces, but because of the question of clickbait-iness, should not be used as the only source for a controversial piece. As OID points out, this issue for the target was all covered in German papers four months ago, BF only naming the person. --Masem (t) 13:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I just read all the related articles (including the bad der spiegel translation). This wasnt a case of Buzzfeed covering it later, apparantly Buzzfeed DE took it up after 4 months because one of the people complaining of bullying felt that their concerns were being papered over by the institute after the initial Der Spiegel piece in Feb. Buzzfeed DE did what appears to be quite a reasonable job of investigative journalism by any standard, felt it was significant enough and as they had been informed the bullying was ongoing, named the professor as part of their report. They interviewed people, looked at the paper (email) trails, solicitied comments from the institution, the individuals at the institution responsible for handling the complaints, and the prof herself, followed up on inconsistances in the statements when confronted with email evidence to the contrary etc etc. In this case its very clear this is not clickbait material. So I'm going to say yes this particular article is a RS for description of the event/issue. Had it just been buzzfield I would probably go with no inclusion. But Der Spiegel, Buzzfeed & nature over a 6-months period? Thats passing my 'could be included suitably worded' threshold. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this case, they are not the sole voice, so BF is fine here, but I'd strongly recommend adding at least Der Speigel as well, that helps make it clear BF wasn't alone in investigation. --Masem (t) 14:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

? That would just put more text in the BLP. Der Spiegel and the Nature editorial No place for bullies in science (which is separate from the Nature article) should go in the Institute articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. BuzzFeedNews is RS, here. See also,
  WP:USEBYOTHERS both Nature and PhysicsWolrd used BuzzFeed as a source (and, sure BuzzFeed honestly said it used Der Spiegel as a source). - Alanscottwalker (talk
  ) 14:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Is Middleeasteye.net a reliable source and does it back this text?

This is about two sets of edits by User:Cirflow :[48] - both use the same source although the first confusingly uses a 2017 source to back an alleged 2018 kidnapping. The second edit say:

"*In 2017 Mayor Faiz Jahwary was ousted from power and coerced into resigning from his post with the ultimatum of also forcibly joining the region with Iraqi Kurdistan.[49]

The source has been discussed before[50] and the editor is still David Hearst.[51] It probably is reliable. My question is whether it reliably backs the text (I never can decide where this sort of question goes, there's nothing in the headers at NORN which suggests it belongs there). I find nothing in the text that suggests he resigned nor do I see anything about an ultimatum. NRT News which may or may not be an RS (the content of its article doesn't help) says he was dismissed but reinstated after a few months.[52] There have been problems with this editor using blogs, Facebook, etc as sources and adding unsourced material, so I'm looking here for others to help me decide if the text here fairly represents the source. I don't think it does. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very small and highly partisan outfit. While Hearst is a recognizable name, there are questions regarding the independence of this website from the Qatari government.[53]. It would be a stretch to say they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: There are obviously numerous issues with User:Cirflow 's edits (i just reverted them). First, the sentence is not supported by the source. Second, about the reliability of Middle East Eye, Icewhiz provided a link pointing to a BBC article about the conditions Saudi arabia and its allies (mainly the UAE) are trying to impose over Qatar. One of these conditions is Qatar to stand down from supporting Al Jazeera and some other medias like Middle East Eye. The Saudis and they allies claim that Middle East Eye is close to the Muslim brotherhood, however, considering the fact that these countries are engaged in a dispute, this may be true or wrong (btw, i disagree with Icewhiz when he says categorically that the source is "highly partisan", as far i have seen, this is only a Saudi/UAE claim, correct me if i'm mistaken), we cannot know for sure. Therefore, i would suggest to use at least a second reliable source for such claims when the only cited source is possibly questionable. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you peek at their front page, their editorial line is quite visible. Regardless of how they are funded, they basically present an Islamist POV.[54][55] Other outlets mainly use them to relate to Islamist positions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The two links you posted just above are for one Emirati and for the other Israeli papers, both are quite hostile with Qatar who is siding with Iran (and Turkey) for now because of their dispute with Saudi Arabia ... More, i did not say "Middle East Eye" is reliable, i said we cannot know for sure and in such cases, additional sources are expected. Anyway, this source does not support Cirflow's edit and thus i reverted him, i think this is the bulk of what Doug weller was expecting. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The JC is not Israeli.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Technically you're right, but judging from this it's not what i would call a neutral reliable source, even if they're based in the UK (and i don't consider for example PRESS TV as a reliable neutral source either). Anyway, as i said above this is not the point. The point is that the source cited by Cirflow did not support his edit.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

PRESS TV is run by the Iranian government - a country without freedom of the press.[56][57]. The JC harks back to 1841, is managed by an independent trust, and covers a wide diversity of thought. There is nothing in their about page that indicates bias - unless you consider "Jewish" being biased.Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of any newspaper/media that includes in its name a religion, whatever this religion is. Maybe it's because i live in France, a laic country, for 40 years ...---Wikaviani (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And btw, Middle East Eye also claims to be an independant media and is also based in the UK, not sure why you believe the JC when they say they're independant, but you don't believe Middle East Eye. according to me, these two sources are both questionables. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to the original question, the source states "Faiz Abed Jahwareh, was removed from his position - allegedly over corruption charges", so it clearly does not support the edit. As for the reliability of the website, the sources provided by Icewhiz are absolute bunk. The BBC article is a reiteration of demands by a Saudi-led group who blockaded Qatar and expelled its citizens, and there is no editorial input over the list of demands by the BBC itself. The other two links are insanely biased and clearly not reliable. Firstly, the National is an Emirati paper that is funded and heavily influenced by one of the governments that is involved in the blockade of Qatar. Both countries were embroiled in a diplomatic rift when that article was published. The UAE is also deeply hostile to Islamist organizations because it perceives democracy as the primary threat to its hereditary monarchy. Your other link, JC, is outside the realm of reliability and neutrality as it likens Hamas to the Nazis and the Islamic State, refers to David Hearst as a "Hamas cheerleader" and parrots Israel's official position. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are vehemently opposed to Hamas and other Islamist groups as well as to those who provide a neutral platform for them, so they shouldn't be taken at their word. I'm unsure the Middle East Eye should be considered a reliable source or not (although Freedom House claims it provides "independent coverage of the region"), but there is no universe where those three sources should be considered as credible sources on the MEE's reliability or editorial independence. Elspamo4 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The assertion on the JC based on an editor not liking an analogy between Hamas and the Nazies is odd. I will note that Hamas has been painting swastikas on some of their incidenary implements of late,[58][59] besides its long standing rhetoric regarding Jews. However, here is another source - Isa Blumi (not Jewish AFAIK - , not aligned with the gulf states AFAICT) - a historian published by an academic publisher (University of California Press) - who says In Middle East Eye, a Qatari-funded online "news" outlet.... even more confusing in this piece supposedly about Yemen is the overy criticism of the "Little Sparta" UAE....[60] - quotes around "news" in the original. For the most part this online blog / news-portal is simply ignored by serious writers, with the exception of some op-eds that present the Islamist narrative/opinion in English - which are notable for the position espoused.Icewhiz (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

All this discussion about the above sources is off topic. Doug Weller's concerns were about whether Middle East Eye supports the claim or not. The source does not support the claim and i think we're done here. cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I missed the talk but I agree. I removed the kidnapping as evidence was weak, and since you say MiddleEastEye has become invalid due to Political turmoil i agree too.

talk

) 00:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Not madly relevant to the original question, but the JC is generally regarded as a RS for factual information - its audience is mainly Jewish, but it has a good reputation in the UK for accuracy. Trouble is that thinking a specific editor on MEE is a "Hamas cheerleader" is not factual - it simply means the JC writer thinks he takes Hamas more seriously/is more sympathetic to Hamas/doesn't condemn Hamas as much as the writer thinks he should do. That opinion is irrelevant to whether MEE is a reliable source for facts. Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Young Earth creationists, cryptozoologists, and assorted other pseudoscience at Mokele-mbembe

Currently Mokele-mbembe swarms with Young Earth creationist/cryptozoology pseudoscience sources rather than available reliable sources from academics. I've rewritten the lead and attempted to gut the rest (which remains entirely propped up by sources from figures like this guy and assorted other cryptozoologists, such as the infamous "living dinosaur" writings of Roy Mackal), only to have it reverted by an editor with a history of pro-cryptozoology edits, who demanded discussion while ignoring talk page threads I had opened ([61]). Barring what I've managed to rewrite to date, the rest would be right at home on CreationWiki. I've mentioned this at the fringe theory noticeboard as well, and the article has gotten a bit more attention since, but as this article describes the best known fixation among the Young Earth creationist/cryptozoology/evolution-is-a-lie crowd, more eyes from reliable source-minded editors would do the article a lot of good. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just how many forums are you going to raise this on?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That'd be two, in this case! The more eyes the better. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

TheBlast.com

I have a question about the reliability of the above website. I would like to use the following article (here) for the

Aoba47 (talk

) 19:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)