Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248

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.

A question has arisen about whether it's appropriate to source information with regard to mass shooting trends from a formerly reliable source which is four years out of date. Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown by James Allan Fox and Monica DeLateur was published in January 2013. At the time of its publication it was unquestionably a reliable source; Fox and DeLateur are widely seen as experts in this field of study. But with five of the ten deadliest shootings having happened after the publication of this article the question has arisen whether it is still reliable for describing trends in firearm-type usage during mass shootings. Compounding this problem, more recent sources for similar information are hard to come by with the exception of a journalistic primary source (Mother Jones,) which Fox previously critiqued for its selection criteria. The question, ultimately is, Should Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown be used as a reliable source for current firearm-type usage questions related to mass shootings? We're not seeking guidance for a specific wording so much as how and to what extent to incorporate information from a dated RS into a discussion of current trends. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong venue, more a NPOV/n issue. The source is obviously reliable up until the time it was written, but does not reflect 2013-8. How much weight to give to recent events (or shootings at all with this type) and the media/activist focus on a specific gun type - is not a RS question.Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

We actually discussed venue on page talk before posting here; and decided RS/N was the venue because the question was one of reliability in a specific context, not a POV question. There's widespread agreement across POVs that it is reliable for trends up to 2013, and no agreement with regard to reliability for current trends. There are four involved editors, and four different opinions about how to proceed over the question of reliability of the source in this context. (Well three and I'm sitting on the fence, which I why I'm the one bringing this forward.) Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is a RS question is whether you have a valid recent RS that covers trends through 2018 - it is the credentials of the newer source that should be examined. Mother Jones doea not sound great (news org, and one with skin in the gun debate) - but who wrote the piece? Are they citing relevant experts? A link would help. What other recent sources are supporting newer trends?Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to mirror Icewhiz here, is there a newer stronger source that disputes the findings of experts in a published book? PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The Mother Jones source is... complicated. It is based on a 2014 dataset that Fox (the same Fox as in the other source) helped compile; but he went on to criticize MJ for using a definition of Mass Shooting that he saw as overly restrictive. Fox's research and the MJ source remain tied until 2014 and then MJ just kept adding to it with very little disclosure as to process other than "we're updating this when new shootings happen." So far nobody has tracked down a better source; a problem is that the majority of the mass shootings in the world, aside from in active war zones, are in the United States, and the United States is just absolutely terrible at recording these in any sort of systemic way. Simonm223 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I would avoid it - iffy reliability of source, iffy relevance (or length of sectikn) to article, and you have to attribute to MJ + mention Fox's critique of their methodology, and it isn't as if MJ is saying something all that groundbreaking vs. the original study (at least from what I understood reading through). Considering this is a "hot" topic there is bound to be a newer academic study.Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

First the Dr. James Fox study is dated Dec 18 2013 [1] and there would also appear January 2014 is cited [2], [3], [4] in numerous sources.

"whether it's appropriate to source information with regard to mass shooting trends" on what grounds does anything actually support the denial claim? I assume you are referring to the fact "handguns are the weapon of choice in mass shootings" surely you are not claiming this is a invalid trend or not quantifiable. Besides the 2014 study in support we have a book published in 2016 [5], handguns weapon of choice by a large margin, we also have research from USA Today published 2017 and 2018 wth the help from Stanford University showing a limitled role of AR use in mass shootings [6], [7] 4 uses in the last 3 years. There is the fact also that Stanford this year has stated that it is to time consuming to keep up with any further tracking of this data and lead to a link of MJ for further tracking.

"But with five of the ten deadliest shootings having happened after the publication" this is not a valid argument of denial (it is not about body count), it is simply five uses of the rifle. Man if we only had a way to see how many handguns have been used to date compared to AR's or even rifles in general. Oh wait we do know how many handguns and rifles used because the 1982-2018 MJ [8] compiled data of mass shootings is easy to filter and understand. Also we have a book by Fox published Jan 29, 2018 [9]

"a formerly reliable source" Can you provide any proof that theory is correct? What proof do you have that says it is outdated? This content is supported by highly respected experts and studies, The denial view appears just opinionated assumptions and baseless assertions. There has not even been one policy or reliable source presented that supports the vality of that argument. There has not been anything shown that the data would be outdated, Just the claim of the numerical date not being 2018, but we do have sources from 2016, 2018 supporting the data.

"which Fox previously critiqued for its selection criteria" Mother Jones is a antigun leaning publication we all know that. It is why I felt it would be a good source to provide neutrality, showing my aim was not based on any bias and to show the correlation of Fox with MJ. The Fox critique was on them presenting "a rising tide of carnage using actual numbers, making the argument that the rise in incidents parallels the increases in the number of guns in the U.S". His influence on that publication was to keep the data honest (which was reported). Exactly how does any of this dispute inclusion? There complied data is cited as much as the Fox study. The content is not just about one Fox study, it is supported with many sources over many years including 2018. -72bikers (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It would appear perhaps inadvertently Simon has made misleading statement here, this is not conducive to a legitimate conclusion. -72bikers (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As Icewhiz, I think correctly stated this is a NPOV question. Being this is not just about one source, it is about denial of content. That experts and studies show the weapon of choice in mass shootings is not the AR-15 but it is semiauto handguns overwhelmingly. There has been only one small mentioned with oddly a 2013 source allowed that kinda reads confusingly with were it is placed " 25% of the weapons used in mass shootings were assault weapons". There has been a lot of controversy at this article with the claim AR-15 "widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" this is only stated in the media by news reporter, they used no studies or compiled data nor expert input. Even the clarifier "by the media" is denied.-72bikers (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Lets not drag other issues into this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A previously reliable source is not likely to become unreliable in the short term (on the order of decades), the question is whether out of date information is UNDUE in light of newer RSes with updated information.

However, over long periods of time, as we get towards centuries, a previously RS can no longer be an RS if the work is based on ideas, theories, and/or data that has been disproven or the like. For example, I would not use a 19th century chemistry textbook to discuss modern chemistry principles (though if one is talking on the history of chemistry, it is just fine).

I would also add that this is applying to more academic type works. The time spans are much shorter when we're talking newspaper-type content. Eg, if we're sourcing data on a topic from an article 4-5 years ago, I would look for any more recent data to make sure we're not using that work in an UNDUE manner. --Masem (t) 00:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also (I have to say this) Fox in fact criticized the Mother Jones source, because of skewed inclusion criteria. This is because there is no clear cut definition of what is a mass shooting, you can look at 4 different sources and get 4 different numbers. In this situation only vague assertions are really possible, not exact figures (and no 25% may not be accurate it depends on what you include). The issue is not reliability for historical data, but RS for up to date current data (which is how it was worded), as when it was made clear that it was a 2013 source (in text) it was undone.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the concern is that a 2013 source is being treated as reliable for making statements about trends that occurred after it was written compounded by the fact that annecdotal evidence suggests a shift in the trend. Nobody is disputing that the source is reliable for information from 2013 or earlier. Simonm223 (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have evidence of a shift in trends related to the information in the article. In reply to Slatersteven's comment about disagreement between sources, I would ask, if this were a late 2018 paper (or if the data were updated to include through this year) what concerns would apply? Anyway, I was hoping we would get more outside voices since I think those of us who are involved already know where we stand. Springee (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If this were a 2018 paper I would have no objection to its use as an RS in this context at all. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

But also agree we need outside voices on this one. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

None, as it would be about current trends, not trends 5 years ago (from an purely RS perspective, there would be other concerns, just not RS ones). As to why it may not reflect current trends, Since it was published nearly 50% of the mass shootings post the publication of the study have used Semi-auto rifles. That is a very major jump from 25%, thus there is an increase in frequency of use. But this is not an RS issue, but it does illustrate why this study is not reliable for current trends.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What source says 50% between 2013 and 2018? Also, I think we need to be clear that these are not trends rather data representing a snapshot in time. Springee (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the much vaunted Mother Jones sources between Jan 2014 and June 2018 there were 33 mass shootings 14 (what 48%?) with semi-auto rifles. This year, there were (so far) 6 (we can add another not in the mother Jones source, again why "historical data" is not good for up to date analysis, so 7) of which 4 used Semi-auto rifles (more then 50%). Thus yes, the trend look upwards.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

SS please do not attempt to skew the facts and claim trends it is data. Please do not try and state facts and not provide a source. You have just now made false claims. Mass shooting are when a gunman kills at least four victims. This is what the FBI and experts such as criminologist (Fox) define it by. This was also addressed above with Fox argue that the magazine’s ground rules for determining what to include So your numbers are way off from what the Fox 2018 book, book published 2016, and USA Toady with Stanford University as well as others. In the last 35 years 13 AR-15 uses in mass shootings and in the last 3 years only 4 uses. You have not shown a source that states AR use is on the rise. The book from 2016 62% and the book by Fox published this year 2018 says handguns up to 70% use.-72bikers (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So are you saying that the Mother Jones source is not reliable? Are you saying that using the Mother Jones source to claims "X percentage of mass shootings" is OR?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you're trying to say here at all. We're not talking about a book published in 2018 and, in fact, a 2018 source from Fox would solve this problem if it's being used properly. Can you please provide a ref? Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The source is on the AR talk page also above in my first post as well as here[10]. There is more than one 2014 study that corelates the weapon of choice is handguns provided here and on the AR talk page, as well as more not shown. I did not believe citation overkill was necessary when providing experts and RS's. So if you actually read the discussions perhaps you would be better informed.

As far as SS arguing inclusion criteria, you would have to look at (AR's) "they have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." Unlike the handgun fact that is expert supported, this is not accredited to any source, whether that be study, expert, or described criteria for inclusion. It was something just stated by journalist in the media. -72bikers (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The source from that book you're referring to is, in turn, citing a 2015 study which means it's still no good for discussions of post-2015 trends. Still that book looks like it could be useful for the article in other ways. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Also this link looks like a list of some incidents, not an analysis of frequency of use, I hope we are not seeing "it says x were used as opposed to y thus Z is true".Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

One of the reasons there's been so much press coverage of and debate over AR-15s is that in the last few years they've been used in multiple very high-profile and deadly mass shootings. That's why so many articles refer to AR-15s as the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters, and why the debate on (re-)banning such rifles has come back into focus. So regardless of whether it's reliable, any source on mass shootings that doesn't cover the last few years simply isn't very useful or pertinent for this article. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Our article on Levonorgestrel is likely to be in the news in the next few days, based upon this news story:[11]

I would like to request a review of the article and its sourcing to make sure that everything is accurate.

When it comes to medical topics, an electronics engineer like myself is pretty much lost (I have this mental picture of a non-engineer M.D. trying to "fix" our

'"In 2002, a judicial review ruled that pregnancy begins at implantation, not fertilisation"

As I said, I have zero expertise here and am making no suggestions for specific changes. Its just that the above quote looks more political than medical to me. I just think medical questions should be answered through research, not judges and juries. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering, what's the stance on unpublished work as a source? For example, if it's a journal article and the content won't change but the citation might, what's our stance on this? I figure that in cases where the content may change the answer is that we can't, since we don't know how it'll be written. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

An unpublished source is one that is not available to the public. For example, if a technical company had an internal technical journal that only employees could read, that would be an unpublished source. Unpublished sources are unacceptable. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to pre-publication copies of papers? Some authors are circulating copies of papers that have been submitted to journals, but not yet published. Such papers have probably not completed a peer-review or been edited by the journal, and so do not fall under the umbrella of the journal as a reliable source. - Donald Albury 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Unpublished sources would fail

WP:V - if it's not published, no one can check the citation. Wait until it's published, then consider including it - we're not up against a deadline to finish the encyclopedia. GirthSummit _(blether)

16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Past discussions about this website on other noticeboards (example) appear to have been focusing mainly (or only) on copyright. Leaving that aside, I believe that it might not be suitable as a reference, because it appears to be a personal review blog.

Example article that appears to be using theattic.space as a reference for potential original research: Is Sex Necessary? Or, Why You Feel the Way You Do (permanent link)

Example diff: Special:Diff/728646914/858622425

More information about the link:

• Special:LinkSearch/https://*.theattic.space/
• meta:User:COIBot/LinkReports/theattic.space

Would it be reasonable to ask user(s) to avoid using the link as a reference, and should it be replaced by "citation needed"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I may be wrong but its author does appear to be a "proper" writer, not just another blogger.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, I do see this too. However, I still wonder if a "proper" writer's personal blog can really be used as a reliable source in this way. In the example diff, it seems to be used as an unnecessary indirect reference to other, actually reliable sources. I wonder why one would not reference these instead, and if this might be a circumvention of the policy on

WP:PRIMARY part: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." ~ ToBeFree (talk

) 15:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

As long as you do not misrepresent the source no. So what is it being used for?Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is currently taking place at Talk:PragerU#Non-RS regarding the reliability of Fox Insider, The Verge, Preston Business Review, Breitbart and WorldNetDaily. –dlthewave ☎ 20:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Is

Claim made in the third paragraph of the lede of Disappearance of Tiffany Whitton. The specific claim is:

Due to Caudle's criminal history, actions and inactions in the immediate aftermath of Whitton's disappearance, false statements about events that night he made later, and his failure to inform authorities or Whitton's family when he was unable to locate her, he is considered a suspect.

-- all with the Esquire piece as the sole citation.

The magazine piece is by Tom Junod, who is notable in his own right as a magazine journalist, and has won awards in that field, albeit one in a case where "he satirically fabricated information" about a living person. (That fabrication was also in Esquire, whose editor-in-chief justified it by saying "one of our duties is to amuse and entertain our audience".)

• "Missing: The Curious Anomaly of Tiffany Whitton's Disappearance".

Many thanks. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I would not use the Esquire to name the person. It is not that Esquire is not an RS, but it's not a high tier RS that I would consider reasonable to use as a sole-source for a possible suspect. If the NYtimes made that claim, then there's a reasonable possibility to include, but BLPCRIME and BLP in general says we should set a bar much higher for inclusion of the name of a suspect, which means multiple high quality sources reporting it. --Masem (t) 19:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of the other sources I cited also name him as at least a person of interest (which makes more sense honestly; I get the feeling from Junod's article, as opposed to the Atlanta TV station and the Journal—Constitution, that he may not have understood the difference since he spent a lot of time talking with Whitton's mother, who has made her mind up about Caudle) ... would rewording and citing the additional sources in the intro be enough? Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of any discussion I have gone ahead and made these changes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This article about the Steele dossier demonstrates why

I am not sure if you understand that the Townhall article (leaving aside the editorializing) is absolutely correct on the facts. Steele was hired and began work (and the dossier was produced) only after Clinton and the DNC took over the funding. The Wikipedia article says exactly this, quoting AP: Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it..

I have absolutely no opinion about whether Townhall is an RS or not. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it does get a few things right, but a whole lot wrong. Read our article first, then read the Townhall article. Then you'll see how many things are wrong with it. --

talk

) PingMe 06:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be better if you just state what you think is wrong. I am not a mind-reader. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't start this post to start a discussion, but to register an example for posterity. It's the type of thing that would be of interest to those already familiar with Townhall and the Dossier. There is no need to carry on since it doesn't interest you. --

talk

) PingMe 07:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The Help Desk sent me here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Are_high_school_yearbooks_reliable_sources_to_verify_attendance?). Someone added Edgar Snyder to the "Notable alumni" section on Taylor Allderdice High School, graduating in 1959. Another editor, John from Idegon, removed Snyder because it was unsourced that he attended the school. Most of the school's yearbooks are published online, in their entirety, so I found Snyder's senior yearbook, found Snyder's senior photo and listing on page 67, added the source to his bio, then re-added his listing to the Taylor Allderdice article. I also wrote the reverting editor on his talk page and provided the link to Snyder's yearbook page (http://www.donslist.net/CACHE/1536403/TAHS1959_0067.jpg or page 67 at http://www.donslist.net/PGHLookups/TAHS1959M.htm). The editor then removed Snyder a second time from the school article, saying school yearbooks are not reliable sources. Is this correct or incorrect? Can an official high school yearbook be used to verify if a notable person attended the school? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be a primary source... of limited use, but reliable within those limits. The only concern I might have is if someone questioned whether the “Edgar Snyder” who attended the school (and appears in the yearbook) is the same “Edgar Snyder” who is the subject of the article. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think any reasonable person doing a simple Google search on this guy would have any doubt that it's the same Edgar Snyder, based on all the strong circumstantial evidence. His date of birth in 1941 (per his bio) perfectly matches the 1959 high school graduation year, and there was only one Edgar Snyder at the school during those years. Also, there are a few sources that show attorney Snyder's involvement with a program at the school. Various major newspaper articles about him state he lives near the school (but unfortunately don't allude to him attending it). Out of curiosity, do you doubt that it's the same Edgar Snyder? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

My take as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, whose "take" are you agreeing with? Your post is currently indented/nested to indicate a response to the OP, but his OP is not a "take", it's a question. Softlavender (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry did not pick up on the incorrect indentation. I was agreeing with the idea we do not know which Edgar Snyder it was.Slatersteven (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Photographic scans on "somewebsite.com" would hardly qualify as a reliable source. The yearbook itself is not in the normal sense a "published document". It cannot be openly purchased, if available in a library, that availability is generally limited to the school library, which is not publicly accessible, or perhaps a single local library. The document itself, a yearbook, is produced by its users, the students, and how does that differ from our prohibitions on user generated content? The oversight on a yearbook is minimal, and also not professional. A teacher is not an experienced journalist or copyeditor. I can tell you that in my own high school yearbook, which won an award, I was listed in the wrong class and my name was misspelled. And surmising that a source is correct because due to other sources it likely is, seems like a very unsafe road to go down. Lastly, coming here is premature, as there is no discussion on the subject whatsoever on the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I have found a secondary, reliable source that verifies Snyder attended the school (https://pittsburghquarterly.com/pq-people-opinion/pq-profiles/item/382-edgar-snyder.html). Snyder says in the article, "I graduated from Taylor Allderdice High in 1959". I will re-add him to the Allderdice article. But I feel it's still very important to settle this issue about the use of high school yearbooks to verify someone's attendance in situations where a traditional reliable source cannot be found. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. It meets
  verifiability. It is a published document which verifies the fact cited. In fact, given the link [12] (p. 67), it's quite easily verifiable by any editor or reader. -- Softlavender (talk
  ) 04:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, especially if not recent, because it meets the
  policy or guideline-based one, but it's persuasive to me in situations like this. Mathglot (talk
  ) 04:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• The fact that the editor found a better source also raises an argument that I did not earlier. Generally, using a yearbook is a "cop-out". If someone (reasonably contemporary, like post WWII) has been written about enough to be notable, someone somewhere has discussed their education. This question generally only arises on "Notable alumni" lists, so lack of independence is also a question. And sorry, many schools make outlandish claims on their websites and other media to make themselves sound better, even public ones (at least in the US). Competition is fierce for students, and public schools are not exempt from competition. John from Idegon (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a complete bunch of nonsense and clearly off-topic. This happens to be a guy who apparently doesn't talk much about his high school days in interviews. He's a white collar professional, who focuses more on his college and post-graduate work. And it's not like there are huge amounts of reliable sources on him. He's locally "famous," not nationally or internationally. And I have no idea what you're even talking about with regard to claims schools make on their websites; that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. We're strictly talking about the use of an official high school yearbook to verify a notable person's attendance. Period. What do you think, high schools like Allderdice make up a person's listing and photo in a yearbook so they can make sure it gets used for devious purposes decades later? You do understand this yearbook was published 59 years ago, right? Using a yearbook is not a cop-out at all when a good secondary source isn't available to verify one's attendance. It's an excellent, trustworthy alternative as long as there's enough evidence to indicate it's the right person. Your anger and unwillingness to even budge just a little is perplexing. In any case, your incoherent rant against public schools is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Please stick to the topic. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear others' thoughts on my advice below. A discussion may provide enlightenment and help me refine my views, as well as getting others to think about this subject.

Keep in mind that even dubious sources will occasionally publish accurate information, but when that happens, find that same information in mainstream RS and use them as the source.

When normally unreliable sources make an exception and get it right, we have a dilemma:

1. Should they should be rewarded by using them as a source in that instance?
2. Should they be used, because when the adversary agrees with facts uncomfortable to them, their testimony is worth more than testimony from the normal allies of said facts?

The second applies, not for documentation of ordinary information, but for very controversial information where their honesty comes as a surprise. They could be included as a source with other sources, but not alone, sort of a "here are the facts, and even the normal enemy of these facts admits it" situation. In a court of law, the testimony of a hostile witness is powerful, and so it is here. The list and ordering of sources might look like this: ABC, Guardian, New York Times, Breitbart (last). The determination of what to do with such a source will have to be a consensus decision.

For example, The Daily Caller can surprise one. Like Fox News, which rarely says anything unfavorable to Trump, they will occasionally do it. This is a good example: "Lanny Davis Suggests Michael Cohen Has Information About Campaign-Related Hacking."^[1] Mainstream sources also covered it.^[2][3] Later Davis tried to retract what he said. Oops! Trump must not have been happy with him for spilling the beans.

Bret Baier, chief political anchor at Fox, grudgingly admitted Trump wasn't truthful during an interview on Fox & Friends: "I mean, the president's rollout of explaining this has not been clear. The Washington Post says it's a flat out lie in their fact-checking. I think you could look back at the statements and clearly he was not 100 percent truthful as he laid that out. You've got his answer to Ainsley Earhardt, saying he knew later on."^[4] Bret's hedging is evident by saying "not 100 percent truthful", instead of the more honest "completely false statements" or, as Shep Smith put it, "not telling the truth".

Shepard Smith, who serves as Fox's chief news anchor and managing editor of the breaking news division, also noted the incident: "Remember, the president first said he did not know about the hush money payments in advance.... Now we know the president was not telling the truth."^[4] Shep Smith is one of the few at Fox who regularly points out Trump's dishonesty and criticizes fellow Fox employees for their dishonest coverage.

I agree with the idea that a group of diverse reliable sources is better than a group of similar reliable sources, but this doesn't justify the use of bad sources such as Breitbart. It would be better to use CNN and Fox News, for example, since both are generally accepted as mainstream reliable sources that may show some bias. –dlthewave ☎ 21:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If a source is so unreliable that we can only tell that something it's saying is true when we have reliable sources saying the same thing, we should just use those reliable sources. A source is either reliable for a given claim (and a source can be reliable for claims about what its own opinions are even if it's not reliable for claims about others due to e.g. its lack of fact-checking or tendency to misrepresent things), or it isn't, IMO. -sche (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. --

talk

) PingMe 02:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The top of this section says "dubious sources will occasionally publish accurate information", but who decides when this is the case? Do we want some Scientologist deciding this? Or a paid editor? The rules have to apply to bad editors as well as good editors, so we can't just allow an editor to arbitrarily decide that a dubious source is publishing accurate information this time. So you need another, more reliable source to verify the information, so why not just use that? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Bingo!

talk

) PingMe 02:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@-sche: It is possible that policy should be amended to reflect that 'best practice'. Maybe something like: low quality sources, as determined by a consensus at RSN, should not be used in conjunction with more reliable sources because they are not necessary and just clutter the article. As it is I am not aware of any current policy that conveys this 'best practice', though it is apparent there is demand for one. Endercase (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh, in my view existing policies and guidelines cover this, inasmuch as

unnecessary citations, especially of sources that aren't reliable — Talk:PragerU has some examples — just as well as they remove article-body prose that's off-topic. -sche (talk

) 21:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The only exception I can think of to this is attributed statements. If Breitbart admitted Trump had lied, that would be noteworthy and thus due, but we wouldn't use it to support a factual claim that Trump lied, but rather to add an attributed statement. Because what's due about that is that Breitbart said it; not what, exactly, Breitbart said.

I understand that it's a complicated situation, I really do. But I honestly think that it's only going to end up being damaging to the project if we start allowing unreliably-sourced information. It presents a beachhead for POV pushing editors to start pushing for more unreliable sources from. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

talk

) PingMe 02:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I might be tempted to use Shep Smith, but not Baier. --

talk

) PingMe 02:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I know. I'm not accusing you of trying to wedge in bad sources, I'm just giving my thoughts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

See,

WP:BESTSOURCES, and it seems like bad rhetoric to try to use maybe/ok/kind-of-sources to make some other kind of implied statement, generally it should just be, 'this is the good info - this is the best source'.Alanscottwalker (talk

) 01:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• If no top-flight RS is available, one could always do what reputable newspapers do in this situation, and evaluate the source right in the text: "According to the usually (sometimes/occasionally/not too)-reliable source Etonnez-moi, Liechtenstein landed a shuttlecraft on Mars on Thursday." As long as it's not in
  Wikipedia's voice, it doesn't even have to be accurate. Mathglot (talk
  ) 05:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#EmDrive again might be of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't lean too hard into the random departments the author is said to have been in - that could simply be a CPC member getting bounced around between postings with sufficient prestige that a PhD would look good in them but with insufficient specialization for it to matter what the PhD is actually in. That said, the journal he was published in doesn't look super-reliable on its own anyway. It's not often cited, and I don't... think... it's juried. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Georges Malbrunot is a French journalist working for Le Figaro. I would like to know if this blog source is reliable enough for the following?

Portion: On 30 May 2013, Georges Malbrunot of Le Figaro wrote that two members of the organization were found dead in Idlib, citing a "European parliamentarian in contact with the anti-government rebels".

Article:

Can it be considered reliable as per

• Yes. Le Figaro is one of the greatest French newspapers, and his article on fr.wiki is convincing. wumbolo ^^^ 11:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been noticing an increasing number of occurrences of [http://www.awardsandwinners.com/category/nandi-awards/nandi-award-for-best-first-film-of-a-director/ awards and winners] being used from everything to BLP's to sourcing award claims. There is no indication anywhere to me that this is a reliable source and appears only to be refspam that has been going on for years. There is no editorial control, no about, no contact (404) and their disclaimer makes it seem like anyone can edit it, though I've been unable to do so directly. There are [https://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp?mode=multi&set=top40&link=awardsandwinners.com&https=1 500 occurrences, mostly in main space.] I'm actually shocked this hasn't been brought up (or blacklisted, for that matter.) I also see no evidence that it's a reliable source or widely used source except within their own social media. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately COIBot couldn't provide more information (result), although I could track one addition by one of the socks of this prolific case... —PaleoNeonate – 09:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should be added to the spam blacklist. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I added a notice at

WT:WPSPAM#awardsandwinners.com —PaleoNeonate

– 00:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Do I need to start a full RFC for this to get blacklisted (and subsequently removed from main space)? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(Copied from the WP:SPAM thread): "Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)". —PaleoNeonate – 22:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Primemfac: Can we do an AWB run to remove this? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I had never heard of this website until I saw these edits. Is it a

Can't see any indication that it would meet RS. Looks like a click-farming news aggregator to me. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Guy, according to their "About" pages, in addition to the founder (who also seems to be the primary writer and editor), they pay freelancers to write for them as well. Now, being paid to about news events, in an ostensibly truthful manner, for publication, is "journalism", at least in the loosest sense. It is not just aggregation. But whether any particular journalistic standards are upheld there, however, I do not know, and I think it is on this point that rests the answer to the question of whether Horn Affairs is a reliable source. If anybody has time to look at this in more depth and to provide links/etc for evidence of their findings, I would be grateful. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if Taagepera:

• Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History. 3 (3/4): 117.
  JSTOR 1170959
  .
• JSTOR 2600793
  .

can be used as a source in this wiki article: List of largest empires.

This author is not a historian and makes claims that are false, namely that the Portuguese colonial Empire did not control the majority of Brazil upon Independence. Which is markedly wrong, as can be seen from an Encyclopedia written in 1807, therefore at a time when the Brazilian territory was still a part of Portugal, and I quote from page 707,

The dominions of South America, held by the small kingdom of Portugal, extend from the frontier at the French Guiana, lat. 1º 30' to port St. Pedro, S. lat 32º, being 33 degrees and a half, or 2000 g. miles: and the breadth, from Cape St. Roque to the furthest Portuguese settlement on the river of Amazons, called Sapatinga, equals, if it do not exceed, that extent*" and the footnote reads: "Da Cunha computes the length of Portuguese possessions, from the river of Pinzon in the North, to the river of San Pedro S at five hundred Portuguese leagues, that is two thousand B. miles, but as there are eighteen Portuguese leagues to the degree, each is not equal, like the Spanish, to four B. miles. He computes the breadth as of the same extent from Cape St Roque to the most western missions,

• source:Pinkerton, John (1807). Modern Geography: A Description of the Empires, Kingdoms, States, and Colonies; with the Oceans, Seas, and Isles; in All Parts of the World: Including the most recent discoveries and Political Alterations. Digested On a New Plan, vol III America and Africa. London: T. Cadell and W. Davis..

Furthermore it claims that Brazil upon independence 'was only half the size it was in 1900'. This is also markedly wrong as can be seen from these sources:

• Murray, Hugh (1837). The Encyclopædia Of Geography: Comprising A Complete Description Of The Earth, Physical, Statistical, Civil, And Political, volume 3. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Blanchard., page 223.

Brazil is a very extensive region [...] after being long held as a Portuguese colony, has of late, by peculiar circumstances, been formed into a separate empire.[...] In the interior, this Empire borders on every side upon the former provinces of Spain.[...] The dimensions of this immense range of territory may be taken from about 4º N to 23º S lat. and from about 35º to 73º W lon. This will give about 2500 miles of extreme length, and about the same in extreme breadth. The area of the whole has been estimated at upwards 3,000,000 square miles

• Barman, Roderick (1988). Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852. Stanford: Stanford University Press., page 12.

Portuguese America, as defined by the treaty of San Ildefonso, signed with Spain in 1777, encompassed territories of nearly 3 million square miles

• Soluri, John, ed. (2018). A Living Past: Environmental Histories of Modern Latin America. New York: Berghahn books.
  ISBN 9781785333903
  ., page 93.

The wiki page in question has been the subject of several edit wars, and there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page.Ppteles (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please provide an opinion? ThanksPpteles (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

1. Source: blogTO.com -- appears to be a blog and violate
   WP:SELF
2. Article: Mirvish+Gehry

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It's more of a local news site than a self-published blog, has an editorial team, posts editor's notes, and cites established reliable sources in its work. It's probably reliable for uncontroversial content, though usually better sources will exist. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a local news site (kind of like a Toronto version of Gothamist only worse). It's also kind of garbage. I'd suggest it's a reliable source for things like "this event happened" or "this person was involved" but if you're sourcing it for anything beyond the basics, there are better Toronto sources. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

1. Source. UrbanDB -- It appears to be crowd sourced. Please also know that I could not use https when accessing the site.

2. Article. Casa Condominio Residenza

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, no evidence this is RS. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

For a second I thought this was going to be a RS question on Urban Dictionary and now I'm very disappointed. Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary is perfectly cromulent. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Can Funding Universe be used as a reliable source for uncontroversial information on a company? Specially, this edit using this as a source on Ligand Pharmaceuticals's page. All feedback is welcomed. Thanks Meatsgains^(talk) 01:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say no. There is no indication of fact checking or editorial control. It appears to be simply an unedited compilation of corporate releases, complete with the expected puffery ("Ligand's proprietary drug discovery and development programs are based on its leadership position in gene transcription..."). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Funding Universe articles are simply copies of articles in the International Directory of Company Histories. It's best to figure out which year and Volume the particular article is from, and use that as the base citation. Often the same article will be repeated at

WP:RX get the most recent copy of the IDCH article via Gale access. Softlavender (talk

) 22:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: That article is actually from International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 47. St. James Press, 2002, so that's how the citation should read. It is also reproduced here: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Gale licenses the old versions of the articles to be freely posted on the internet. Since that version is 16 years old, there is doubtless a more current version which is not on the internet but that is available via Gale access or via the hard copy of a later edition. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to ask what you think about Brzezinski's book:Brzezinski, Zbigniew (2012). Strategic vision : America and the crisis of global power (PDF). New York: Basic Books.

However, the author has written about History, and is just as much a historian as the main author cited on that page, Taagepera, whose work in fact, I challenge the reliability above, because it's riddled with false information.Ppteles (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this about the issue of the area of Portugal at the extent of its imperial power? I'd suggest you could probably find a stronger source for that data if it's non-controversial. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll clarify that my objection to the source isn't that the author isn't a historian, but that that the book is about a completely unrelated topic – 21st century geopolitics, as opposed to the territorial extents of historical polities – with this as the sole mention of the latter in the entire book. In other words, it runs afoul of

WP:RSCONTEXT, which says Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. TompaDompa (talk

) 19:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

So, again, there's probably a better source for this information readily available? Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223:Is this source reliable?Ppteles (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: or this one? Ppteles (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say for the mtholyoke.edu page, it is just a page of data without much context but I'd suggest

WP:PRIMARY would be a good guide for it. I'd avoid a childrens' book; if people are being persnickety about a non-expert like Brzezinski on the page, that might be a non-starter. Simonm223 (talk

) 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The topic under discussion is specifically data about the world's largest empires, not Portuguese history per se. That better sources might be available is not germane to the subject of whether this book is RS for this specific subject, though of course if a better source exists it should also be cited. I'm also confused why we're discussing this as this doesn't appear to be a controversial subject - these figures are only estimates, any estimate depends on a range of assumptions, there is no "right" or "wrong" estimate. If credible estimates differ, then give both. Additionally Brzezinski WAS an acknowledged scholar in the field of international relations, and therefore IS an RS on the subject of large empires. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

PS - I think there's a good case that that entire page may be original research by the way, since it appears to be a collection carried out by the editors themselves. The criteria for inclusion aren't based on any agreed criteria external to Wiki, just decided by the editors themselves - this is against

WP:LISTV#INC. FOARP (talk

) 12:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I generally avoid list pages like the plague and this list page is reminding me of why that is. I'd concede there's nothing wrong with setting a standard of using de facto empire sizes rather than de jure empire sizes, but other issues with the page, such as selecting what constitutes an empire to begin with seem rather more haphazard. The big one: excluding the United States from the definition on the basis that its constituent states are sovereign *cough*Puerto Rico*cough* *cough*Guam*cough* Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@FOARP:@Simonm223: could you please give some input on this wiki's talk page, especially concerning the false value provided in Taagepera's source, and if you believe Brzezinski could be used as a reliable source. Thank you.Ppteles (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe the value is false. I'm saying that reasonable estimates can differ based on assumptions and this being the case it makes sense to include both. Anyway, I agree with

WP:LISTV#INC. FOARP (talk

) 08:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's place to debate between two reliably sourced claims. However I agree entirely with

synthesis of data from sources and poorly defined, non-independent, criteria for inclusion. Simonm223 (talk

) 12:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Brzezniski list per

WP:C: it's a list created through a creative process, I believe such lists are copyright (as for example are music charts). Guy (Help!

) 18:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Is it ok to add the values in it to a wider table, for instance as a column, with the values referencing the list?Ppteles (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Can File:Petra Mark Hollingsworth letter to Rocky DeLauri.jpg be used as a reference as it is being used here? Not watching so please ping me and @Roccodb: as the discussion progresses. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:Firstly Wikipedia is not an RS so I doubt anything on here is. Secondly How can we tell if this is a genuine letter, how can we verify it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The source isn't Wikipedia, but we are being used to house the source.

I agree that there is no way to confirm the authenticity of the letter. It was the latter reason that prompted me to remove it as a source and restore the tag. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:What I meant was anything can be uploaded to Wikipedia and stored here. There mere fact it is here (and no on a site we would regard as generally reliable for its content) rings alarm bells.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I understood that (as I've been around for a while). This is mostly a conversation for Roccodb. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A letter ADDRESSED to me and mailed in the US Mail to me, is then MY property. I own it at that point. If Mark Hollingsworth didn't want me to make it public, it would have a disclaimer on it. It doesn't. And Mark is on Facebook and you can easily verify he wrote it by just ASKING HIM! I totally disagree I have violated any copyright law publishing a letter addressed to me that I own. I also have a current text from the manager and daughter of the lead singer Greg X. Volz, Jonna Volz thanking me and asking me to put the video on YouTube and Facebook. I am a man of integrity and have worked at the Christian Broadcasting Network for 36 years and hundreds of people know me. I would never compromise my soul for something like this. What else can I do to prove this if you won't check with Mark? Also, as the promoter of the concert the day I shot the video, I still have my contract for that show. But I'm guessing with what your saying here putting a file of that up doesn't prove it to you. I have numerous articles that were written about me back when I was doing concerts and shot this video that were in The Virginian Pilot, the largest newspaper in the state of Virginia by daily circulation. Do I need to post those articles to prove I am who I say I am? I don't think any specifically talk about the video, but they do talk about me bringing the bands to town in concert. Please help me as I am new on here. Thanks!Roccodb (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roccodb, unfortunately Wikipedia has a history of being conned by editors who claimed to be something or someone they were not... and because of this, we cannot trust that you are who you claim to be. Nor can we trust that this letter isn’t something you created in your basement, and mailed to yourself. We simply cannot call it a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It is also a copyright infringement. If you send somebody a letter then the recipient owns the letter, but they don't own the contents of the letter. So on that basis they can sell on the letter but they can't make and publish copies of it. It is this law that underpins the IP of the film and music industries i.e. you can do what you want with your legally purchased property but you can't make copies, unless that right is explicitly licensed to you. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Roccodb added that text to the article [17], apparently as a form of self-promotion. In my opinion, unless this is mentioned and cited somewhere in a
  here to build an encyclopedia, but only to add his name to an article. Softlavender (talk
  ) 23:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• The file has been deleted from Commons as a copyright violation since the author of a letter is the copyright holder, not the recipient. But even if the file was still available, it would not be a reliable source for use on Wikipedia, because it has not been published in a book, magazine, newspaper or other publication with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Roccodb, please ask yourself: Why you are here on Wikipedia? If it is to get your own name into the encyclopedia, then I will block you right now, since we do not allow self-promotion. If you are truly here to improve the encyclopedia, then move on to something else, because your current path leads nowhere except to a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The letter doesn't even support the statement. It doesn't mention Petra, it doesn't identify DeLauri as the producer and it doesn't say that "Blinded Eyes" was their first music video. –dlthewave ☎ 01:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the ineptitude here boggles the mind. Did you even READ the letter dlthewave? OBVIOUSLY NOT or your just unable to comprehend English. The letter CLEARLY mentions Petra. It is signed by the manager of Petra as, "Manager, Petra". It CLEARLY identifies me as the creator of the video "Blinded Eyes" and thanks me for doing it. Statements like yours and you should be stricken from this site for your complete lack of comprehension. Roccodb (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I take extreme issue with the statements by Softlavender and Cullen328 that I only want to self promote. I thought the goal of Wikipedia was to be as accurate as possible with truthful, factual information. My only goal was to set the record straight because as it is, it is NOT FACTUAL! Wikipedia now says Petra's 1st video was in 1985 "Beat The System". That is absolutely false. Word Records, the largest Christian Record Company in the world, put my video on their 1st music video reel in 1984, a full year before Beat the System was released. They ended up years later with over 300 reels. It was sent to thousands of Christian Bookstores and a multitude of Christian TV stations. There is a multitude of witnesses. I would think that you should be thinking about how inaccurate your site is right now to say anything different. I am the one trying to set the record to be factual. As far as Mark Hollingsworth letter to me. You say it is a copyright violation. Do you realize that is you admitting he wrote it and that it is real? You can't have it both ways. It is really sad that instead of wanting the information to be accurate on Wikipedia, you choose to attack and falsely accuse me. Here is a published article about me. It is not me self promoting, just me disproving these false accusations. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whatever_Happened_To.jpg Roccodb (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If that image is a page from a publication, it is also a copyright violation to upload it, but thanks for trying to improve the project. What I and Slatersteven stated was that there's no proof that you are not just a clever Photoshop user who can mock-up images to make them look authentic.

As for the "self-promotion" bit, do you know of any secondary sources that support 1) what was the first short-form video that Petra made 2) whether it was "Blinded Eyes", "The Coloring Song", or something else 3) that "Rocky DeLauri" produced it? I didn't read the contents of the local news piece. If that's what it states, we can use it as a source, but not the image itself. I can show you how. Feel free to {{

ping}} me on the band article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 01:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Walter, I tried to do the ping thing but obviously I couldn't figure it out. It's a catch 22 that you delete anything I post to prove my point claiming it's a copyright violation. How can I prove anything if it anything published is a copyright violation? That is a vicious loop that can only fail. Am I a "clever Photoshop user", your words. Well I am decent at it, I am the Senior Video Editor for the 700 Club. You ever watched it? I do the open for the show everyday and all the promos and teases, etc. I have been there 36 years. A simple phone call could confirm that if you care to check facts before you make a judgement on me. 757-226-2468. Front desk lobby phone. You don't last that long there if you don't have integrity, I assure you. Some people I am good friends with. 2nd Chapter of Acts, brought them 4 times. Got close to all of them. Matthew would bring gifts for my daughter and I for his. Steve Greisen can vouch for me too. Sweet Comfort Band. They all know me. Mylon LeFevre, brought him 4 times. Watched a George Foreman fight with him at my friend Don Black's house. You know Don, he runs the Cornerstone Television Network. I could go on and on. It seems pointless because you have incorrectly judged me without doing your due diligence in doing a simple thing like just check my Facebook page or work place and all the proof found there. What breaks my heart about this is I have been saved now 41 years and spent that whole time with anyone who knows me or has dealt with me in any way... business, church, work and they will all tell you the same thing about me. I am an honest, straight shooter who will never be anything but completely truthful with you. I donated money I didn't have in the past to Wikipedia because my integrity told me it wasn't right to enjoy the site without helping. You and your friends have completely turned me off to this site. I no longer respect or believe it is interested in the truth. Only agendas of a few people who obviously have too much power not earned. Have a good day! Roccodb (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You can cite that newspaper page for any of the content in the article (just use the cite news template, you could use the url https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-68514644.html with subscription required=yes), but there's no need to upload the page itself. --tronvillain (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the article doesn't currently say that Petra's first video was in 1985 "Beat The System". Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is because I changed it to reflect the truth. Roccodb (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, It's because I removed all mention of the word "first". Please actually read the current version of the article before you react. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read

Oh you folks are ABSOLUTELY committing libel and accusing me of fraud. The sad thing is you guys are just plain LAZY in my opinion. You all keep making statements like there is no way to verify the letter. Really? If instead of just sitting behind your computers doing nothing but typing false accusations against another human, you actually did something before that, then I could respect you. All you had to do is send the link to the letter to the author of the letter, Mark Hollingsworth and SIMPLY ask him if it is authentic. Mark knows me, I booked Petra 4 times with him and am friends with him on Facebook now. He currently works for Compassion Intl. flying all over the world the help them feed children. I use to let them do presentations at all my concerts. But how all of you sit there doing nothing but falsely judging me, is beyond anything I have ever encountered. I do take it personally. You are attacking me personally. If you weren't lazy you could also pick up the phone and call the Christian Broadcasting Network where I have a distinguished, blessed by God career and am known by literally hundreds of employees, not self promoting, just defending myself against false accusations that can easily be disproved, and verify I am who I say I am. Ridiculous I have to say that. You could also just click on my Facebook page, again makes me believe you folks are lazy, just a click and there is a mountain of evidence in pictures and comments by hundreds of people verifying I am who I say I am. I have won 2 Silver Telly Awards for my productions. Pictures and a letter from the Telly Council on my FB page. But I have no confidence from what you people have written here you will take the time to do even look at all that. I personally want you to know I don't take your false accusations lightly. If you are going to do that you have to do just the slightest due diligence and attempt to see if your false statement has any basis in fact. If you did that, you would clearly see how wrong you are. It also means something to God as He made it one of His 10 COMMANDMENTS. "Don't bear false witness", and that is all this is. And please quit repeating the letter does not qualify as a reliable source. It ABSOLUTELY IS, just ask it's author!! Roccodb (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Roccodb, I believe you are telling the truth, and also you apparently uploaded the music video of "Blinded Eyes" to YouTube (although who actually owns the copyright to that video is unknown to me). However, neither your letter nor the video qualify as sources or citations for Wikipedia's purposes. We only report what is reported in reliable, generally second-hand or third-hand, sources that are independent of the subject. I have removed the word "first" from the article on the strength of your testimony, which I believe; however we can't add information about the "Blinded Eyes" video without a reliable second-hand or third-hand source. This is how Wikipedia operates according to its policies (and if it didn't, it would be no different than any run-of-the-mill blog or social-media site). Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Petra just added MY music video with my description as me being the producer and it being their very 1st music video ever, to their Facebook page. Link: https://www.facebook.com/Petraband/?fb_dtsg_ag=Adx2d-asRpes7H8iyR32xTxahYDhSzQt7XhpVErFDRxe5Q%3AAdzTxUGCGDdoxn7q4oAVQJytkzfm3XqEXtB7lGJCcC45qw

Wow, is that proof enough for all you people? Or are you going to accuse Petra of being in on it with me. I am passionate because truth has always been so important to me. Proverbs 6 says there are 6 things the Lord Hates. Funny that 3 of the 6 deal with exactly what you folks have done to me here. I wonder if now that Petra has verified I told the truth on their page will anyone here admit they were wrong? I doubt it. Roccodb (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Roccodb, becoming hostile, making legal threats, and making accusations of ineptitude is not going to help you; in fact, it's going to weigh heavily against you, as it would in communications with any organization. Once again, you need to realize that Wikipedia has specific policies that it abides by. Softlavender (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Using the word libel in no way is a threat to legal action. But if it needs to be said, I am NOT threatening legal action, that is absurd to me. I am only pointing out the truth to what is going on here. Roccodb (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you care to upload the letter to another site so we can check what it says? And yes, if Petra verifies it it might well be acceptable to source it to that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be used as a source, even if verified; we've all read the letter and it doesn't say anything specific or even the name of the song. Softlavender (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, the very 1st sentence of the letter says the name of the song with quotation marks. How can you say you read the letter and make the comment, "it doesn't say anything specific or even the name of the song."  ???? Roccodb (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My error: I was misremembering a statement someone made above. Softlavender (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Roccodb You're missing the point about verifiability, and I'd ask you to tone down the insults. I don't doubt that you are telling the truth, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore our normal sourcing requirements - none of us here has any right to include material isn't sourced according to our policies, even if we are sure that the material is correct. Let's say I e-mail Mark Hollingsworth, and he replies to me confirming what you say - that's still not verifiable, e-mails can be faked, so it would just be my word saying 'I've got an e-mail so this is legit'. We don't work like that - we look for reliable, independently published sources to back up assertions, and if those sources don't exist then we don't make the assertion. BTW, you should retract the statement where you say that people are committing libel - that sounds a lot like a legal threat, and people tend to get blocked instantly for doing that. I'd advise you to make it explicitly clear that you are not threatening legal action, and strike the statement - if you're not sure how to strike it, confirm here that you want me to and I'll do it for you. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC) I AM NOT THREATENING LEGAL ACTION! I hope that is clear enough for you. Using the word libel is not a threat.Roccodb (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The facebook post may be enough, except it does not say who produced it, you have to go to the video to see that. And then we go back to anyone can create a page and upload stuff. How do we verify that you are Rocco DeLauri Sr. or that you made (rather then just uploaded) that video?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Who produced it is immaterial, as that is not something we add to Wikipedia regarding run-of-the-mill music videos. Softlavender (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is a separate issue from RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Petra putting it on their page is not enough??? Let's use some basic common sense here. Why would Petra share it to their page with my description of me as the creator, producer, etc. if it were not true. At the very least they would put a statement disagreeing with that if they believed that. And now Greg X. Volz, the lead singer in the video has shared it to both his fan page and Facebook page and thanked me by name. Link: https://www.facebook.com/gregxvolzmusic/ I understand I am a very passionate person. I wish I was more like Jesus and able to not take things personally. But I am not Jesus and I am a human and I always express exactly how I feel. If Petra and Greg X. Volz posting it and thanking me aren't enough for you folks, I seriously don't understand how anything gets posted on Wikipedia. I also don't want to offend anyone and apologize if I have. I just wanted the page to be truthful and accurate. Without my comment, it isn't. That's all. Roccodb (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you would actually read the Wikipedia article, you will see that it is not inaccurate. Softlavender (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No I am not kidding you. There maybe many reasons why they might have corrected a mistake (such as not seeing it, not caring, not having the time). I am not them so have no idea what goes on in their minds, this is why we have

wp:v

, because we can all try and guess what someone is thinking, and we can all guess wrong.

As to how to get anything posted on Wikipedia, read

wp:rs and follow those instructions. Hell how about contacting Petra and asking them to officially say you made the video, how hard can that be?Slatersteven (talk

) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we're not going to add the name of a producer of a music video to the article, so this line of inquiry/instruction is unhelpful. Softlavender (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

https://scroll.in, http://www.opindia.com/, https://thewire.in, https://www.thequint.com/, https://theprint.in/, https://www.dailyo.in/, https://postcard.news/, https://rightlog.in/, http://insistposthindi.in/ , https://www.nationalheraldindia.com and https://www.altnews.in/ etc. should not be considered reliable sources as all of them have either pro or anti-government biases. They are not mainstream media, All of them are web based news sites with the main news consumers limited to internet users and more specifically social media users. Altnews is a private company managed by a team of people who claim to verify news by in-house Techniques and methodology... I find this questionable..moreover the neutrality of Altnews founder has been questioned for biases [http://www.opindia.com/2017/09/how-neutral-is-fake-news-buster-altnews/], [18]. .

It was started here and then discussed to some length here ... Basically I Am looking for some generalized guidelines for barring all these websites from using as reliable sources because it will save much trouble in insertion of POV pushing material in politically sensitive BLPs and Articles related to India. Thanks ----Adamstraw99 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting procedural close of the thread above, since a bunch of sites all deserving an independent look have been clubbed together. Some of them are proven propaganda sites and some of them are reliable fact checking sites. with such a diverse spectrum of sites, No Generalized guideline can be passed as the nominator has requested. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(+1) to what DBigXray states.Too diverse for any realistic discussion but I will keep a watch. ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, Most of these sites are proven propaganda sites and de-recognizing them will surely save much trouble ahead. I think you mean 'Altnews' when you say 'some of them are reliable fact checking sites' ... So, I am ready to remove it from this list if you are so sure about it...But scrutiny of all these sites is very necessary to prevent very likely POV pushing and edit-warring in political/politically sensitive articles related to India in future. in RS arena these sites will surely cause trouble and ultimately all of them will end-up here tomorrow.. So lets try to settle this once and for all in the interest of community and neutral editing. Thanks for understanding --Adamstraw99 (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a detailed discussion is needed and this should be not be closed. DBigXray is right in stating that each of these sources are indeed different and need to be looked at individually (and not as as group or clubbed together). The discussion topic might not be phrased correctly but a real issue exists. IMO, the issue is that India, like the US, has seen the rise of multiple news media websites which do not necessarily publish paper media or have news channels but are plain websites. They come in all hues and flavors very similar to Breitbart, Wonkette, New York Post, AlterNet, American Conservative, Huffington post (I have picked from left and right varying them on their views from the US Media to provide a frame of reference to other non-Indian editors). There has been a detailed discussion on a good deal of these (US-based) websites and what is acceptable and what is not. Unfortunately, such a detailed discussion has not occurred for the Indian news-ecosystem and is required. Currently, different editors consider different sources to be valid/invalid based on their personal perceptions/likes/dislikes which at times may/may not be marred by their political beliefs. In my view, we need to evaluate these different websites or atleast measure them with the same yard-stick to ensure that there is a some form of guideline. In the earlier talk page discussion I had pointed to MediaBiastFactCheck [19] as an independent metric that can be considered. I would like to hear the views of other editors here about tackling this issue. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RS. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 21:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: yes, I Agree with you. Something needs to be done about these websites and you described it perfectly when you said - "Unfortunately, such a detailed discussion has not occurred for the Indian news-ecosystem and is required"... Thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in using The Quint, The Print and The Wire for satisfying

WP:V too. It also allows user-submitted content and their editorial control is questionable at best. No opinion on the rest. —Gazoth (talk

) 22:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Scroll should be considered RS on grounds of

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Same with DailyO. Kailash29792 (talk)

04:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RS. The other option is we evaluate each one of them individually like this forum as done before but this will get tedious (but I am fine with it). I am also going to ping @Kautilya3 and SshibumXZ: other editors who edit in this area and may or may not have something to add here. I know that Kautilya3 and I have had a discussion on this topic in the past and were not necessarily on the same page. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 03:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: We have to evaluate them individually. It is impossible to find an unbiased metric that fits our requirements. I saw that you have suggested MediaBiastFactCheck, but it is too US focused. For example, it puts Republic as left-centre, the same as The Wire, just because of a single article that criticises Trump. They do note that the publication is right-leaning for national news, but the fact that it got pushed to the very end reflects the high priority given to reporting of US news. —Gazoth (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: This is not central to this discussion but I spent some time to look back at what caused this whole discussion. If I guess it correctly it was the use of Altnews as a source to state that Republic TV was reporting fake news (or something on those lines). I am not arguing on the validity of that argument but its removal was warranted. This would be like someone using CNN to call Fox New false or vice versa which is problematic given that we know both of them sit on the opposite sides of the political spectrum. And even if you were to argue that Altnews is not on the other end, that still does not make it the authority on that subject. Just my 2 cents. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks
  news organisation with editors being advised to exercise caution when citing it and to properly attribute its editorial stance and opinion.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs
  ). 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC); edited 15:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

Sidenote — I agree with Adamgerber80 in that, although this is a very wide discussion, it should not be closed and each site should be assessed individually, not in a grouped and generalised manner. Also, I have changed the section heading; feel free to revert.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC); edited 15:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

The credibility or reliability of media's  should not be based  on wether they support or criticise the government.Majority of the medias are working by criticizing the government all over the world.

talk

)

17:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Akhiljaxxn:, thanks for joining the discussion, but I think I should clarify here that my main concern here is not about these sources being pro or anti-govt. , criticism of govt. is always welcome the world over... I Am concerned about the creation of anti or pro government narrative using pro or anti-government propaganda, so propaganda is my primary concern because things cited in any article based on these websites as RS will bring battleground behavior and edit wars which will surely bring POV activities in many articles AS I Am sure propaganda articles will escalate in all these websites as we approach April-May 2019... other main concern is all these are web portals managed by a group of team who write blog like articles on daily basis, They are not mainstream media so not as RS as other established media like Times of India, ANI etc. .. If we accept them as reliable sources then riding on this numerous web portals will come up causing more atrocities in Wikipedia articles... A real problem exists as some of the editors have pointed out in this discussion... Some are clear offenders like Postcardnews, which is a Shameless Naked serial news faker and so notorious that nobody is even mentioning it here in this discussion... I See only one problem in Altnews which is they are cherry-picking the cases and are very selective in reporting, Picking stories painting only one side or community bad and ignoring others in selecting news materials to fact-check is a biased approached in my opinion... @Winged Blades of Godric: had told me on my talk-page that they will give me some instances of the "multiple mainstream media" where altnews is being "heavily mentioned" as a reliable source but I Am still waiting for their response... If that happens then I will remove Altnews from this list... and @DBigXray:, don't worry 'गेहूं के साथ घुन नहीं पिसेगा' (since you used that sentence on my TP ) Thanks everybody for joining in... ---Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'll leave my detailed perspectives on each of the sources and a reply to Adamberger80's apt query, shortly.∯WBG^converse 17:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth, SshibumXZ, and Akhiljaxxn: I quit taking The Print seriously after found this substandard opinion piece written by a known Pakistani propagandist. --Saqib (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: It is clearly labelled as an opinion piece and the final sentence discloses his COI by noting that he is a volunteer in Imran Khan's party. I don't see anything wrong with providing a platform for politicians to air their views, regardless of their nationality. If you notice any issues with their articles not tagged as an opinion piece, do highlight them. —Gazoth (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@

attributing the writer's point of view, hence—although certainly of a little concern—this shouldn't disqualify The Print from being a reliable source.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs

). 14:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC); edited 15:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC).

It will be better to evaluate mentioned portals individually. Here @Adamstraw99 has given many portal are together. So that the discussion will be having limitation and it will be difficult to go for a judgment. This is my opinion. ---[[User:Akbarali]] ([[Talk:Akbarali|Talk]]) (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Akbarali: I formatted your edit a bit. Hope you don't mind.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A de-novo start

• Comment--To begin with, it was un-wise to start a single thread with so many diversified sources and as many have stated, it is much prudential to tackle each of them head-on.

Thus, I'm devoting a subsection to each of the mentioned source wherein I am putting my analysis of the source.

Please take issues with each of my analysis at the very specific subsection and chime in with your views/thoughts as to each of them.

This has been mentioned at the Indian-Project-Noticeboard and I do hope that this discussion, (the first of it's sort about the Indian-news-ecosystem), will lead to a consensus as to the usage of certain sources and some broader perspectives.

Best,∯WBG^converse 07:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Republic TV and Times Now

• Passes
  WP:NEWSORG
  .
• Right-wing-media and it's (probably) beyond doubt.The former has been set up by a BJP-top-brass.
• IMO, is parallel to Fox News and shall be treated as such.
  • Controversial statements (as to anything tangentially connected to politics, nationalism et al) are best not sourced to news-reports by either of them and if sourced, maintain
    WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.∯WBG^converse
    11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Zee News and ABP News

• Passes
  WP:NEWSORG
  .
• Will be adding my views.∯WBG^converse 11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Scroll.in

• Left-wing-media and it's again (probably) beyond doubt.
• Quite a lot of opinionated reporting but objective reporting is equally abundant.

• Distinguishing between op-eds and objective-reporting is not done.See Gazoth's examples, just below and several more can be found out, at a glance.
• I locate a distinct biased tome, even in it's objective-pieces and am disinclined to give much value to their reports, esp. from the lens of NPOV.

• Passes
  WP:V
  shall be well-satisfied by their reports.
• I'm very skeptical as to whether it can be used as a RS, even for satisfying
  WP:V
  in mundane issues, given it's partisan tones and op-ed-style of journalism.

• Controversial statements (as to anything tangentially connected to politics, nationalism et al) ought be not sourced to news-reports by them and if sourced, maintain
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.Same for their opinion-pieces and all other news-article(s).∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• @
  WP:RS according to your determination above. However, both the headline and the article itself are written in a subjective style that suits an opinion piece much more than a news report. If the same article was published in a traditional print publication, it would have been considered a sports column and labelled appropriately. However, Scroll.in doesn't do that and doesn't appear to be concerned about clearly differentiating their objective reporting from subjective opinion pieces. —Gazoth (talk
  ) 16:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely.I apologize for my miss-classification, (in the short span of time that I could devote yesterday) and ammended accordinglyI am also amending my other analysis-es incorporating much details.∯WBG^converse 07:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Having removed Scroll.in from various articles before, I found that their stories are often drawn from poor quality sources and when you look for the alternative you don't happen to find the information in any actual reliable source. This also happens when you are editing historical or social subjects. I definitely think that it is an unreliable source and should be avoided.
  Capitals00 (talk
  ) 11:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• I think they are reliable and useful. In any case, we can use scroll.in for reported incidents("this happened here") and facts but not opinions. I have found they do report incidents in greater details than most others. Personally, I find them quite reliable. Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  Acharya63, How do you distinguish their op-eds from factual reporting? ∯WBG^converse 07:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, I avoid them for political opinions or opinions related to current govt. But they seem to provide more intricate details on other stuff. For example, reported events(not the opinion about those events), in an article, that do not benefit or harm any political party have no reason to be biased. (Disclaimer: I am not an Indian Citizen but I identify as Hindu and am an admirer of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. That would probably make me a rightist :-)) Thanks Acharya63 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The Wire

• Left-wing-media and it's again (probably) beyond doubt.
• Quite a lot of opinionated reporting but objective reporting is located.

• Distinguishing between op-eds and objective-reporting is not done.See this for an example.Also, see this on a supposedly mundane topic.
• I locate a distinct biased tome, even in it's objective-pieces and am disinclined to give much value to their reports, esp. from the lens of NPOV.

• But, ought to pass
  WP:NEWSORG
  .

• Controversial statements (as to anything tangentially connected to politics, nationalism et al) ought be not sourced to news-reports by them and if sourced, maintain
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.Same for their opinion-pieces and other news-articles.∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Near-entirely opinion-heavy website. Dispassionate objective fact-based reporting without resorting to commentaries is near-absent.

• Fails
  WP:RS comprehensively.∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

National Herald

• Dynasty-paper. An Indian National Congress mouthpiece, in all practicalities.Was re-launched by Rahul Gandhi.
• Objective reporting in areas of politics, economy et al is scarce and differentiating them from biased op-eds is a difficult task.See this news for an example.
• Even has an entire section devoted to watching the activities of RSS.

• Passes
  WP:NEWSORG
  but nowhere near a good-quality-source.

• Controversial statements (as to anything tangentially connected to politics, nationalism et al) ought be not sourced to news-reports by them and if sourced, maintain
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. ∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Established and edited by reputed journalists, passes
  WP:NEWSORG
  .
• Quite a lot of opinion pieces but objective reporting is equally abundant.

• I note a clear distinguishing between opinion-pieces and objective-reporting.
• Left-biased but as long as you avoid the opinion pieces, quite-well-enough to be used as a RS for meeting
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Right-wing-mouthpiece, as a glaze over their reports will confirm.
• Nothing about editorial standards or people involved can be located except that they have been established for countering the lies of Mainstream Media.Fails
  WP:NEWSORG
  .

• Self-describes to be a pro-Modi and pro-nationalist website.

• Basically, a fake-news-site.See this and this report.

• Fails
  WP:RS and by a mile.∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• The name of the website and a glaze of the reports emphasize their extreme right-wing-bias.

• Nothing about editorial policies et al.Fails
  WP:NEWSORG
  .

• Fails
  WP:RS and by a mile.∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Can be charitably described as Right-wing-propaganda-medium and uncharitably as a cohort of as utter fucking lunatics.

• Fails
  WP:NEWSORG
  comprehensively and was co-established by someone with self-asserted extreme-right-leanings.
• The website self-describes to practice libertarian politics and journalism that is free from the burden of liberal bias and political correctness.Oh! The irony......

• Objective-reporting is near-entirely absent and it is (self-asserted) mostly a filtered-curation of various news-sources, on an issue.
• I came across [http://www.opindia.com/2018/09/demystifying-the-civil-society-how-are-the-urban-maoists-and-nota-connected/ this] article in my feed (a few hours back) and I am shivering at the other-worldly-talents possessed by their research-desk.

• Fails
  WP:RS by a mile or so.∯WBG^converse
  08:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Self-describes to be a 2 years old Digital Marketing Company who has been managing Social Media accounts for several companies and individuals, handling Campaigns and Promotions for the brands. Our primary focus is in to building the Digital Identity of the client and help them promote in the Digital Media.

• Fails
  WP:RS and by a mile.∯WBG^converse
  11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• One-man-website but has been covered as a fake-news-buster multiple times by reputable-media-outlets across the spectrum.

• Loads of evidence of significant coverage might be seen at the references provided in our entry about the portal.
• See this piece over Hindustan Times which covers Prateek and AltNews in it's entirety.Also, this news article at financialExpress quotes pratik several times as an authority on fake-news-debunking.Yet another HT piece narrating the debunking of a particular website as a fake-news-provider by Altnews.A Wire piece about pratik and Altnews.Even BBC is quoting it in it's news report, which further vouches for it's reliability.I cannot locate the exact piece but came across one in TOI which devoted nearly half-a-page to AltNews and the rise of fake-news in India.Also, see this show hosted by NDTVand featured Altnews and the boom of fake-news.

• Overall, it's beyond doubt that the site is damn reliable and passes the scrutiny of
  WP:RS
  .Barring some right-wing-propaganda sites, not a single reputable media-outlet has criticized his methods or proved him to be wrong in his deductions and/or assertions.

• And, I additionally believe, that given it's coverage across the spectrum, it can be easily used as a tool to pinpoint news-outlets as propagators of fake-news without getting into the debate of Pratik's political leanings.Sort of similar to the usage of Retraction Watch.∯WBG^converse 11:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The Quint

• WBG, Ithink you missed this one too, looks like web-based unreliable to me...
  WP:RS
  , what you say?

Nope, it comes from the same worldview as The Wire and Scroll.in and qualifies as a Reliable Source. AshLin (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

General discussions

So i see that the gentlemen went on with the thread despite my request for individual threads. I am sorry I am not going to participate in this mess of a thread, but would suggest at least make sub-sections to deal with each site. Good to see WBG dividing his reply in subsections. Good luck, regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, take a re-look:-)∯WBG^converse 07:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, Thank you so much for your inputs, I think you missed 'Opindia' which looks like a right-wing propaganda portal, Any opinion on this one? Thank you --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This is of the same calibre as PostCard News and has been noted as pushing fake news and misrepresentations. AshLin (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• I will note that my opinion of the overall Indian-media-scape is quite low.News-for-pay has been abundant across the political spectrum and even long-established reputable dailies like TOI are on a downhill slope, as to editorial control.With increasing concentration of media ownership in the hands of few mega-corporate groups, who are almost-always in a bonhomie with political parties, impartial reporting has taken a further hit.Laxity in professionalism in achieving accuracy and an-often-indulged trend to twist words and increase click-revenue, has been often criticized. Inspite of these, I hope that this discussion will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, despite knowing that the thus-segregated wheat will be hardly any sell-able∯WBG^converse 09:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• There are only two excellent English language newspapers in India: The Hindu, The Indian Express. Scroll.in is not hard news, but it has some excellent feature articles. The worst in India are the one that unashamedly brownnose the current government, calling Modi, "PM Modi." The New Indian Express and Zee News are the scum of the gutter in this regard. None of the Hindi newspapers are reliable. Shameful for a country of 1.3 billion people. So if it not in The Hindu or the The Indian Express don't bother using it. The others listed I've never heard of. What would be the point of using something written by a cub reporter who is copying from Wikipedia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • PS The Calcutta newspapers, Statesman and The Telegraph are probably good too. They use to be, but haven't read them in a while. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: yeah, I agree with your assessment that The Hindu and The Indian Express are the only outright reliable sources in India. However there are others that can be used as references for verifiability of non-outrageous claims like the Financial Express (same group as The Indian Express), Business Line (same publishing group as The Hindu), The Telegraph and Business Standard. There are some others, but I am not totally sure of their reliability. And yep, circular reporting is a big problem in India, see: [non-mainstream website link], [quasi-mainstream website link]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SshibumXZ (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think broadbanding newspapers the way @Fowler&fowler: has done is inaccurate. The Indian newspaper scenario is large and complex. A large number of English newspapers in India publish and occupy various parts of the spectrum. Some are clearly very reputable and some have long standing publication histories. Many newspapers have no persistent bias and have articles by right wing, centrist and left wing authors. As is normal, many news publishers have clean reporting, opeds and guest pieces. In India, as in the US, we have corporate ownership and resultant biases. We also have government pushed disinformation pushed by proxies, which appear in all types of publications. We have our share of excellent and poor journalism. Certain papers like Business Standard provide excellent reporting on a few topics, such as defence , while certain financial newspapers publish hard core right wing propaganda pieces. In the midst of all this is the slew of fake news and misrepresentation provided by a large bunch of right wing sites which predominate the social media space and whose "reporting" leaks to the newspaper world. What we do not have are consistent standards of good journalism, even for the Telegraph and the Statesman. In such cases, rather than deciding solely by source, each item should be considered in its own merit, against its backdrop, author and affiliations, whether fact or opinion is being referred, corroboration by other sources etc. There are no shortcuts here except in identifying and excluding clear cut sources of fake news and misrepresentation. AshLin (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear community, when I Raised this case the primary concern was that all these listed being online Web Portals and not mainstream media along with their biased propaganda interests/targeting/blog like articles... I Know there are questions/objections regarding biases of REPUBLICTV, ZEENEWS, NDTV, NEWSX, ABP etc but they are mainstream media and Timesofindia, theindianexpress, 'the hindu' etc. are also widely regarded mainstream and established/reliable so discussing all these except the listed web portal is a very different and broad thing... I never meant to bring them here but only the listed '"web portals" --thanks everybody --Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be endless discussion and views of what constitutes a reliable source. Sometimes each source is assessed independently which requires a great deal of opinion and debate which of course introduces the potential for bias from ourselves. Why aren't we using sources that aggregate results from reputable fact-checkers such as mediabiasfactcheck?

This site seems to use two broad assessments of each source: 1) Whether it's left or right biased and 2) Whether the facts are accurate. Since it's the responsibility of Wiki editors to ensure article are presented from a neutral point of view, and examine all points of view, I'm not too concerned about 1). So let's concentrate on 2) whether the facts are correct. Mediabiasfactcheck obtains information from a large number of Internationally based fact checkers to obtain a score.

Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH = a score of 0, which means the source is always factual, sources to credible information and makes immediate corrections to incorrect information and has never failed a fact check.

Factual Reporting: HIGH = a score of 1 – 3, which means the source is almost always factual, sources to mostly credible low biased or high factual information and makes immediate corrections to incorrect information and has failed only 1 fact check.

Factual Reporting: MIXED = a score of 4 – 6, which means the source does not always use proper sourcing or sources to other biased/mixed sources. They may also report well sourced information as well. Mixed sources will have failed one or more fact checks and does not immediately correct false or misleading information. While the majority of the information may be factual on these sources, they need to be checked. Further, any source that does not disclose a mission or ownership information will automatically be deemed mixed.

Factual Reporting: LOW = a score of 6 – 8, which means the source rarely uses credible sources and is simply not trustworthy for reliable information. These are the sources that need to be fact checked for intentional fake news, conspiracy and propaganda.

Factual Reporting: VERY LOW = a score of 9 – 10, which means the source almost never uses credible sources and is simply not trustworthy for reliable information at all. These are the sources that always need to be fact checked for intentional fake news, conspiracy and propaganda.

So why not allow this site as a guide where only High and Very High are used, and Mixed only with extreme caution and when other sources aren't available? (Andromedean (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC))

I don't think that outsourcing our critical faculties is a good idea. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that have been established and refined over the years to help us to assess what is a reliable source for what type of claim; our internal systems allow us to debate and discuss this to arrive at conclusions by reasoned argument and consensus-forming. Assessing the quality and suitability of sources for specific claims is amongst the most important things editors do on Wikipedia - sites like Mediabiasfactcheck might be a useful resource to help inform our discussions, but we shouldn't attempt to create an environment where it's sufficient to say 'X' is reliable because 'Y' says so. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I think. There are a number of resources that will help us to establish the reliability of specific sources. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

What is their criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• I got as far as reading that the BBC often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes, that China Daily [the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party] is the most credible media source and that Most content on Wikipedia is well sourced with minimal bias before deciding I wouldn't trust this site in the slightest. I totally oppose this proposal or any variant of it. ‑ 
  Iridescent
  09:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Did not think of looking for Wikipedia, frankly that "non RS's" it for me. Even we do not consider Wikipedia RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, with regard to Chinese domestic news (specifically in that context) their critique of the BBC and praise of China Daily are both kind of apropos. At least they were when I lived in China a decade ago... Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

2008 BBC article about the weather in China: "The insidious Chinese Communist Party predicted rain for Harbin last Wednesday and they were dead wrong. It was sunny."Simonm223 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and it pains me how often I encounter this website. It's a website with no employees, and run by a guy who runs the website as a side-gig from his health-care industry job. The methodology used to determine bias is utter nonsense, and the determinations are in part made by random-ass user ratings (e.g. if users say that Reuters is a liberal conspiracy outlet then the 'bias rating' will take account of that). The website uses Wikipedia in part to make the determinations. The website's FAQ also includes this embarrassing item:[20] I’ve seen negative articles written about MBFC. Why is that? It is simple. Highly biased websites that are not always factual don’t like us exposing them. Since we back our ratings with evidence they don’t really have any recourse other than to discredit our website and ratings. We fully expect this, but are confident the readers of this website will be able to look at the source, our ratings, and decide for themselves who is credible.

I would tend to agree with the comments above regarding the assessment of left right bias, this is susceptible to Overton window drift, but as I tried to point out this is irrelevant, Wikipedeans can adjust the terminology to a neutral point of view. What the site does is use data from fact checks from the International Fact Checking Network. such as Polifact, Snopes, and Full Fact (UK) amongst similar ones for different countries. If you type a media source in, it returns a preamble regarding left or right bias which is standard, this doesn't directly relate to the site, ignore this. If you go halfway down it provides a rating for Factual Reporting, in coloured letters. I'll give some examples:

BBC: Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

New Scientist: Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

Mayo Clinic: Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

BMJ: Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH

Scientific American: Factual Reporting: HIGH

CBS: Factual Reporting_ HIGH

USA Today: Factual Reporting: HIGH

New York Times: Factual Reporting: HIGH

Washington Post: Factual Reporting: HIGH

Sky News: Factual Reporting: HIGH

Guardian: Factual Reporting: HIGH

Forbes: Factual Reporting: MIXED

MSNBC: Factual Reporting: MIXED

CNN: Factual Reporting: MIXED

Fox News Factual Reporting: MIXED

Daily Mail Factual Reporting: MIXED

RT News Factual Reporting: MIXED

Watts Up with That: Factual Reporting: LOW

InfoWars: Factual Reporting: VERY LOW

(Andromedean (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC))

Bluntly, if you seriously think the BBC—which has been on an anti-left crusade for the past decade—has a "left wing bias", that Wikipedia's accuracy is "high", or that the Communist Party has no left-wing bias(!), you really don't understand how to assess either reliability or neutrality in Wikipedia terms. There is absolutely no possibility that we're going to accept this obviously bullshit user-generated site as a reliable source for anything. ‑ 

Iridescent

13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• No. Much better to have a myriad of minds working together here to determine what is or isn’t RS through discussion than following the dictates of a single independent online media outlet such as MBFC News and their donors. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• I would treat the use of this site to determine reliability the same way I treat the use of Wikipedia as a research tool: read the relevant article for a general idea, then start following the sources for the claims. They seem to be okay-ish with respect to identifying a site's bias and factual accuracy, but they're not always on the nose with respect to the most objective measures of such things. This is because part of their data set consists of user polls, as well as the judgement of a relatively small number of people. So I wouldn't object to someone citing it in a discussion about the reliability of a source, but I would never ever consider it the final word, or even a definitive statement.
  Tell me all about it.
  13:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding my half tongue-in-cheek comment above about China Daily and the BBC, (seriously though, we tend to over-estimate the quality of BBC reporting and under-estimate the quality of China Daily reporting in the West though neither is perfect by any means) I'd concur that it's best for us not to offload judgment calls to third parties in general. Heck, I've been railing on for a month about
  WP:MMANOT over-relying on Sherdog for notability criteria. Simonm223 (talk
  ) 13:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Accuracy aside, this is not a task that we should be outsourcing. –dlthewave ☎ 15:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Actually I agree with the BBC comment above with regards to present political events at least. However, the BBC/Sky etc is already assumed to be a reliable source by Wiki. It is the alternative sites, most are rubbish, but a few who are doing their job (getting good fact checking scores) who are the losers, because they are all perceived as unreliable sources.(Andromedean (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC))

• No, it's not a reliable source for anything other than itself. I've looked at it before in some detail and agree with the negative comments above. Sometimes it may get a site's left-right bias right, other times it is clearly wrong and sometimes it's just confusing. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you show me an example of them getting a site's bias wrong? I've had misgivings about that site from the moment I discovered it, but I've yet to see any evidence of them being categorically wrong.

Tell me all about it.

16:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more a matter of MediaBiasFactCheck having an implicit bias of its own - a tendency to center its political compass on the United States and a tendency to weigh editorial on the US heavy compared to international editorials. A perfect example is this: The Epoch Times is notoriously inaccurate with regard to reportage related to China. It's also pretty virulently right-wing. However, it's not run by actual fascists, which by US standards probably makes its bias right-center rather than extreme. Its' anti-China bias isn't that much more galling than that of Foreign Policy - which the website erroneously calls a least-biased source. As somebody who used to hate-read FP mainly to find out what American imperial actions to get angry about in any given month, until their pro-American bias became too sickening to handle, I find that a little bit questionable to say the least. But I have to measure everything through the terrifying funhouse mirror that is the American Overton Window. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• NO. Small site, run as a hobby whose reputation is not great - worse than RSN, :-). He probably gets the bias correct usually, and for the bigger outlets probably has fact check information (of varying quality)..... But for out of the way websites and fringe newspapers - the entries are of a rather low quality.Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Not advisable: use RSN instead, as well as this resource:
  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources‎, along with editorial judgement. --K.e.coffman (talk
  ) 01:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources‎ cites Fox News and Forbes as reliable, whereas Factual Reporting: only give it a MIXED score. Other than that I can't see any differences between the two, except Mediabiasfact check covers 100x more sources. As I say ignore the left right preamble which is irrelevant to us and focus on the factcheck part (High, mixed, low). Unfortunately Mediabiasfact check is poorly presented and alienates people before they get to the important part. What is RSN? (Andromedean (talk
  ) 09:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC))

This is RSN. I don't see how we could determine whether we can trust the scores it gives source. If I read their site correctly, they describe their method as checking the content of a few articles from a source, determining how accurate they are, and then giving it a score. They don't describe in any detail how many articles they've checked, how frequently they review, how they decide which articles to check, or whether they give any weighting to the particular nature of the inaccuracy (a wrong birthday is less significant than a false report of conviction for murder) or how they occurred (a simple mistake in fact checking is poor, but intentional fabrication to get a good headline should be seen as more troubling). I just don't see how these scores could ever do more than inform a discussion that we would have here anyway.GirthSummit _(blether)

09:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Carlo Maria Viganò (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, this Catholic prelate is in the news for stunning allegations against other high-ranking officials. The narrative presently depends heavily on LifeSiteNews, which is not simply a biased source, but rather notorious for their agenda-driven fabrications, distortions and defamation. Surely it would be worthwhile to locate sources with better reputations for fact-checking and editorial oversight. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to ask anyone looking into this to examine the talk page for this article. The IP made a similar posting there. I believe it adequately documents why the complaint should be rejected. Display name 99 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

reliable sources, but a blanket removal of references to LifeSiteNews is not going to work in this case. Bradv

20:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see this diff of me being reverted: ([21]).

In terms of our policies, the other editor is quite right to do this - the text they reverted is what the source said. But it's left Wikipedia stating as fact something that is untrue.

The source, which has no expertise on Jewish scholarship, is factually incorrect. The name given is one used in a book that was indeed written by a Jew, but is not an accepted Jewish source and indeed on the precise point we're dealing with (what someone's name was) is contradicted by traditional / accepted Jewish sources.

Your expert suggestions welcomed. --

We find counter RS and pout in both views.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems hard to do that without either going UNDUE or leaving the claim unchallenged in the text. Try this: "A gift shop is positioned below the ark, while a restaurant called Emzara's Kitchen – an allusion to "the traditional Jewish name for Noah's wife" according to source XXXXXX, although the traditional Jewish name for Noah's wife is actually Naamah,[new source] – is located behind the ark.[17] The Ararat Ridge Zoo, a petting zoo, is also part of the attraction.[2][17]" Bit bonkers. --

old fashioned!

08:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Would it work to elide past the error? So this: "A gift shop is positioned below the ark, while a restaurant called Emzara's Kitchen – an allusion to a traditional name for Noah's wife – is located behind the ark.[17] The Ararat Ridge Zoo, a petting zoo, is also part of the attraction.[2][17]" --

Might it be possible to avoid the issue by rewording the sentence to remove the assertion about it being the traditional Jewish name? Eg: "...while a restaurant called Emzara's Kitchen - an allusion to Noah's wife..." - it seems to me that that would be uncontroversial, and perfectly sufficient for the sentence in question, which is really about the name of a restaurant rather than about what constitutes traditional Jewish scholarship. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(

WP:SYNTH unless a source directly addressed that; maybe try "A gift shop is positioned below the ark, while a restaurant called Emzara's Kitchen – named after Noah's wife – is located behind the ark." as in this and this source. Vice has has "To do so required getting off the ark and heading across a gravely expanse to Emzara's Kitchen (the name given to Noah's wife in one of the non-canonical books of scripture)" Galobtter (pingó mió

) 09:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer Girth's I think, as it implies lack of consensus on her name, while Galobtter's implies more of a certainty around it. The sources you've added are great, thank you. Any other input? There's no made rush, so I'll leave this here for a day or two. I've promoted the discussion at article talk and a couple of WikiProjects, as well as with the editor who reverted. --

old fashioned!

10:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I also think that avoiding the erroneous mention could solve this. There was a similar issue at another article about the term "universal flood myth", if I remember the resulting consensus was to avoid mentioning the misleading term that one of the sources used. —PaleoNeonate – 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

At this point I feel I should point out this is not an RS issue, unless the source is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I was going to suggest your solution: change "the" to "a", and done with it. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to adopt the version of Dweller as the most correct according to both opinions. True, the source says "traditional", which is not correct. Specifying the specific tradition as being the Book of Jubilees will make it correct, but even according to the source it will simply specify which tradition is meant.

In addition I would like to remind Theroadislong that we should

paraphrase our sources, not quote them blindly, and for that reason too I prefer the version of Dweller. Debresser (talk

) 11:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Another option: simply omit any mention that there is a restaurant. Theme attractions usually have restaurants, so the fact that “Arc Encounters” also has one is an unimportant factoid. Omitting all mention of the restaurant completely removes the need to mention where its name comes from. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've had this sort of problem and it is a real pain because there don't tend to be RSs that point out that something is false! If you can't agree to just remove the error then the best way round I think is to raise an RfC to remove the statement and its RS by consensus.

Dmcq (talk

) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• RSes are not infalliable. The solution is either find a better source, or refute the wrong information (by other sources) on the talk page. If the mistake is wide enough - it might be worthwhile to state so in the text or in a footnote. E.g. there are a multitude of RSea that state that Joseph Nicholson Barney graduated from United States Naval Academy - however this is patently incorrect since the USNA was only opened in 1845 (however by the time he died in 1899- it become an assumption this was how the navy worked - however the early Navy worked on a totally different basis (similar to the English Navy), and Midshipman was an actual service (not cadet) rank) - since this error was very widespread, I footnoted the inconsistency.Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• I have just been involved in a similar situation over at Hell's Angels (film). The film's budget was subject to immense propaganda at the time of the release, and the contemporary sources all carry the same erroneous figure. It is also documented over at IMDB so unfortunately it has spread like the clap in a Wild West whorehouse. The error (publicity propaganda in this case) has since been uncovered and exposed but even reputable modern sources still repeat the error. It is very difficult to fight back on something like this when the majority of reliable sources carry incorrect information, and the correct information is in the minority. The only way forward in this type of situation is to present a solid argument on the talk page with sources to back up your position. I was fortunate because I had a source that specifically commented on the error (which isn't always the case) but the key thing to remember is that we are editors not parrotts. You don't have to prove you are right, but if you can raise sufficient doubt over the accuracy of a source then that should be enough to exclude such a claim IMO. Wikipedia does have an important role to play in breaking a chain of misinformation. Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

wp:or, just because I know something it not true should never be enough for me to remove information.Slatersteven (talk

) 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair I haven't actually said that, have I? This is what I advocated: "The only way forward in this type of situation is to present a solid argument on the talk page with sources to back up your position."Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Which (if you care to look) has not been done in this case, it is just "well I kn ow it to be false" with some backing from other eds here. This is why I felt the point must be emphasized that personally known truth does not trump RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've encountered this before. This can happen in particular in the more obscure corners of the site, or when media sources grab hold of something and run with it. In these cases, the answer to date has been to either find a better source or just bar the problem source from the article altogether after explaining the issue on the article's talk page. After all,
  WP:OR, we're also expected to operate with brains. :bloodofox: (talk
  ) 16:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is not a difference of opinion about whether or not Emzara is the traditional Jewish name for one of Noah's wives, but an issue of fact. The name comes from the Book of Jubilees, which is only accepted by Ethiopian Jews and Christians. The problem is that if you mention her you need to explain who she is. Why not source it to Ark Encounter, for example, "Emzara, who according to Ark Encounter was one of Noah's wives." I would avoid mentioning the Book of Jubilees because it would mean nothing to most readers. If they are really interested in the names of Noah's wives, they can click on the link. TFD (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The source isn't the Ark Encounter, it's USA Today, and the name is traditional, but it's apparently not the traditional Jewish name. Suggest: "a restaurant called Emzara's Kitchen – alluding to a traditional name for Noah's wife". . . dave souza, talk 20:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I know the source is USA Today, which is why I wrote "Why not source it to Ark Encounter." The problem is that the USA Today article is wrong. According to James Kugel, in his book about the Book of Jubillees, p. 315, its authors invented the name Emzara.[22] Instead I suggested that we use Ark Encounter as a source for the claim that one of Noah's wives was called Emzara. Unfortunately, their website says one has to visit the Ark in order to find out who she was. So alternatively we could omit mention of why the restaurant is called Emzara. Usually a lack of sources means the issue lacks weight. TFD (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the editor who said we're editors and not parrots; if it's inaccurate to say it's "the traditional Jewish name", change it to "a name" or the like (I see someone has done that)... and consider whether the name or even the restaurant is notable at all, as Blueboar and TFD suggest. If it's not mentioned in many sources, it may not be notable enough to include, even if it is mentioned in one.
FWIW this is a recurring issue, it also came up when a Reliable Source said ArbCom retitled the article on Chelsea Manning (ArbCom doesn't decide content, the title was decided via an RM). I joked then that it'd be policy-compliant to cite the RS to support the false statement and just "[point] those who think that statement is untrue to wp:Verifiability, not truth"; obviously, I think that's a poor course of action. -sche (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but the problem looks totally artificial. If I come to the same noticeboard and ask:

"Is USA today a reliable source about Jewish mythology?"

the answer will be "definitely not: the author is not a specialist in that field, it is not clear where did they obtain this information, and the source has not been peer-reviewed". If I'll try to add this source (USA Today) to the Wives aboard Noah's Ark article, I think the result will be quite predictable :)

However, this source is reliable about the explanation of the origin of the restaurant's name: obviously, the person who gave this name believed it was the traditional name of Noah's wife. IMO, the best thing to do is to add a link to the Wikipedia article that discusses this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not about Jewish Mythology which I find to be rather a problematic claim. The restaurant is given a name, and the restaurant asserts the name to be a "traditional name" for one of Noah's wives, and the "fact" is "the reason why the restaurant was given the name" and nothing at all to do with discussions about the name of Noah's wife or wives. Thus this is not an "issue of fact" in any sense. Collect (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you know that the restaurant asserts the name is a traditional Jewish name? The source does not say that. TFD (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

URL referenced above is in far too many BLPs and appears to be wholly unreliable and

I'm also bundling this with takemetonaija.com as this is used a lot in articles and is clearly and totally unreliable, it's basically a blog. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The former self-describes as HausaFilms.tv is a collaborative wiki-based website putting it squarely in the "unusable as RS" territory. (There might be reasonable uses as an

external link

.)

The other lacks the usual hallmarks of reliability, so I have no objection to removing that as a source. (Again, see caveat.) --Izno (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Izno my issue with takemetonaija is that it's clearly the equivalent of a blog/rag mag. See their super scientific piece about intimacy(possibly nsfw?) There's clearly no editorial oversight with this one as it's one guy blogging. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just assessing reliability and leaving the note that they may still be acceptable EL (without necessarily assessing them against that guideline). --Izno (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Both are not reliable in general. But more specifically, takemetonaija.com is a garbage compilation blog, so shouldn't be used on Wikipedia anywhere. On other hand, hausafilms.tv can be allowed on limited case to support movie appearance of Hausa film actors, where no better source exist. These claims are generally true. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you regarding hausafilms.tv as they are a Wiki itself and often just recycle content from here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I explore the site further and agree it shouldn't be used at all just like the other. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Do maps need sources? Per this edit [23]. It seems to have a book source on commons. Thylacoop5 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily... Maps are merely illustrations of things that are stated in the text of an article... that text should be properly sourced but the illustration does not have to be. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In this instance, the book source listed does not reference a Warsangali sultanate, as such adding that map to the article would be

WP:OR. --Kzl55 (talk

) 18:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have said yes, anyone can create map. But like anything it must be sourced, and verifiable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A trio of editors, GeelJire, Kzl55 and XKeyse keep reinserting the notion that

This is already being dealt with at

WP:ANI#Disruptive editing by Thylacoop5. There's no need to discuss it here too. Bradv

20:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Btw, here's the sources calling it an autocracy, "autocratic head", "autocratic discipline of his dervishes", "autocratic Hassan", "a dictator", "autocracy", ""harsh autocracy of Dervish rule", besides others. Thylacoop5 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In each case, the information in question is cited to a source... so it does not appear to be

WP:Original research. This seems to be a simple content dispute - a question of trying to balance sources that give conflicting information. Blueboar (talk

) 21:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Its sourced, but the source does not say what the article text says. If you search with any combination of "founded", "founder" etc. including in the Italian language, it comes up empty. Perhaps the better way to phrase it is "misrepresented sourcing". You can even try synonyms such as "established" and it will come up empty. Thylacoop5 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have invited the aforementioned editors on their talk pages so they can provide the quote which substantiates this "founder" claim. Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure... it would be helpful to know what the cited sources DO say about Sudi and Aman. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I am thinking about working on the article for

Last week I made a Huggle revert on Donna Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a questionable deletion. User Rick solomon said that a cited quote in an article from a reliable source (The Philadelphia Inquirer) was inaccurate, without anything to back it up. The quote was from someone named Rick Solomon talking about Donna Summer's artwork (see this diff). The user went on to say that he "never made the quotes attributed to me" and that "the citation cannot be retrieved any longer" on my user talk page. There's no way of knowing for sure that the user is who he says he is, and upon further investigation I found that the only reason the article is unavailable is because of a change in the website hosting the article. The link directly in the article now redirects to the Philadelphia Inquirer archives website. I found the original article in the Inquirer archives when I searched "Donna Summer," but you now have to pay $2.95 to be able to read it. For reference, here is the original article in the Internet Archive. Requesting another opinion on this situation. Aspening (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no issue with the source, and what the ed says is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the cause of Rick Solomon's concern is that the archived article quotes Jack Solomon — not Rick Solomon. The fifth paragraph of the archived article introduces the speaker as "Jack Solomon, chairman of Circle Fine Art Corp., ..." Here are links to the first and second parts of the article as it appeared on the printed pages. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting... would it be appropriate to add the content back in with Jack Solomon as the person quoted? Aspening (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're effectively black-listing the other British tabloids, even having automatic warnings trigger which basically tell you not to use them as a source (but not making clear that things like, e.g., statements in interviews reported by the paper should be kosher) leaving

For context, see

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Mirror. Looks like previous discussions are here and here, with the most recent being from 2013. GMG^talk

13:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I argued at the time (and since, more then once), that we should not single out the Daily Myth. And I agree the Daily Mirror should also be banned for the same reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I lean toward exclusion of tabloids generally, but there is a substantive difference between the Mail and the Mirror (and Sun and the rest) in its fabrication of stories, churnalism (especially in Mail Online), harassment and incitement to harassment, and of course its notorious "sidebar of shame". Guy (Help!) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I remember when we were voting to exude the Daily Myth that I got it's lies mixed up with those of the "Daily British solders torturing Iraqi prisoners shock photos", sorry its lies are far far worse and far ore damaging.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• I would support blanket deprecation. This sort of tabloid churnalism shouldn't ever be used as a source for claims of fact.
  Tell me all about it.
  14:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

But what does "blanket deprecation" mean?

We already have policies on sourcing in general. We do not have a pervasive problem with such that would be improved by automatically excluding certain sources, just because they're easy to define.

If we want to source David Beckham's inside leg measurement, then the Mail is probably a good source for that. The problem there is a focus on tabloid subjects, not their sources. Now if WP was to exclude more of the gossip column topics, then I'd be fine with that, but it ain't going to happen. We are already mired in many DM sources for such, and neither they nor their articles are going away.

There are cases where the DM uses its deep pockets to buy newsworthy photographs that others can only dream of. Those are cases where it justifies itself.

If political bias is the problem, then why is the BBC permitted? They've become dreadful (Laura Kuenssberg, I mean you) in recent years.

WP is forever finding reasons to exclude the UK press as "worthless tabloids", yet USA Today and Fox News are unchallenged.

We need a policy which says that editors need to make editorial decisions to exclude bad sources and avoid bias. We already have this. We can't replace such an editorial demand by simply saying, "The Mail is out, but Fox is OK". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

At present we have blanket deprecation of the Daily Mail. This means if you edit a page to include a reference to it you receive a warning telling you not to do it. If you then still go ahead and do it, it appear an alert is sent as you will very likely then see someone come into to remove the reference even for non-contentious material. There is no really reason why the Daily Mail should be blanket-banned in this fashion, but not the Mirror which has many times done things equally as bad (the hoax-photos scandal, the harrassment during the phone-hacking scandal etc.) and is just as arguably not an RS. Not to do so seems like pure political bias. EDIT: just to emphasise the point here, Wiki already is "automatically excluding certain sources, just because they're easy to define" FOARP (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• What is the problem?
• Will this fix it?
• Are there other solutions?

I do not see a blanket focus on the publisher as being anything like as effective as good editorial management of individual sources. For all three of these points. In particular, because the Mail or Mirror might be bad but there's much worse out there these days and because those sources are US, they're never going to see the same overall deprecation. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• We also have edits like this (Go on, guess who) which are blanking sections of relevant, non-contentious content, simply because the Mirror was involved. And yet they don't tag the content as needing better sources (as policy states they ought to) or even fact-checking it themselves (BTW: [24])

This pruning is nothing to do with improving anything, it's just the same handful of editors waving their egos around. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is about a handful of edds getting fed up with this kind of crap being used as a source when you cannot trust it. This might not be an issue if we enforced "notnews" rigidly, but we have to have live news feed articles, and so we use media sources whose first concearn is "exclusives" and "scoops" not accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

So would you support the deletion which I linked? As an outright deletion? Or tagging as {{

cn

}} adding?

Because edits like this (removing the lot) are damaging in a way that they do not need to be, and it's not being done to "improve" anything, it's just being done to massage egos. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, you could ask the very same question about and NonRS. I would also suggest you AGF, this is not about egos (unless it is the ego of Newspaper editors and owners who think they do not have to follow the rules of common decency whilst acting as moral guardians), this is about using only the best and most accurate sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Well it's better than The Sun, but that's not exactly saying much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• The Daily Mail was banned for repeatedly lying, not just for poor fact checking. I probably would have supported a ban for The Daily Mirror while Piers Morgan was editing it, but is there any evidence that its inaccurate stories are any more than poor/lazy journalism? Once Paul Dacre leaves the Mail we'll probably have to review that ban too, if we can be sure the fabricated stories have come to an end. If we are going to just ban The Daily Mirror for being crap then we should just bite the bullet and ban all British tabloids for being crap. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  Further comment: Can I just say that I have noticed the Daily Mail ban being used to remove opinion pieces such as reviews and op-eds from the article, and it really bugs me. I support the ban for factual reporting but I don't think it should apply to op-eds. For example, this op-ed Ed Miliband wrote in defence of his father was a notable story, and there is no reason to suspect that the article does not accurately reflect Ed Miliband's feelings towards his father, and therefore I see no reason why we can't use it in a primary source capacity for the writer's own opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  The problem there is that the Mail has a well-deserved reputation for fabricating interviews, too (this is a notorious recent example). In Miliband's case it's almost certainly genuine as he didn't complain, but one can't be sure. Where the Mail is undoubtedly a RS is as a citation for itself ("on 2 August the Daily Mail claimed that..."), but anywhere else it needs extreme caution. ‑ 

  Iridescent

  19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

  I am okay with banning the DM as a source for interviews, but an interview is a different beast to an op-ed. In an interview the journalist writes up the interview so the capacity to misrepresent somebody still exists. That is quite different from an op-ed or a review where the author retains control of the piece, and to be fair the DM discussion focused on factual accuracy, not opinion pieces. I took part in that discussion and supported the ban but it has over-reached what I originally supported. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the Daily Mirror was involved in one of the biggest hoaxes of 21st century UK journalism and was deeply embroiled in the phone-hacking scandal, and that the topic under discussion here is not the Daily Mail, which is already essentially a banned source on Wiki, but the unequal treatment of other UK tabloids which are little or no better. PS - Betty Logan, Paul Dacre has already left the Mail. FOARP. PPS- Andy Dingley I think you're right about the inconsistency between the UK and tabloid/propagandistic sources external to the UK, especially when not only Fox News, but RT, have avoid blanket deprecation - the difference for both of those sources is that there is an active community on Wiki dedicated to defending them and preventing the kind of blanket deprecation applied to other, undefended sources. All the same, if we're applying blanket bans, then this should be done consistently. (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we may be over0interpreting the Daily Mail ban, to the extent that it may need rewording. It has to be used very cautiously, but not all of it is worthless. As I have followed these issues here on RSN for the last 11 or 12 years, there has been an increasing well-merited skepticism about many individual sources, I think we are losing the perspective that there are many intermediate grades between sources that are always reliable and sources that are never reliable--I've stated this previously as "no source is always reliable for all purposes, and no source is totally useless for some purposes. We have to consider not just the name of the source and its general reliability, with the actual content of the particular item involved. To use an unrelated example, various afds in the last year have rejected (in my opinion correctly) even the NYT as a RS for notability in some of the coverage of some of its columns, about "interesting" human interest subjects. The reverse is true even of the Daily Mail. Nothing it says can be trusted to be necessarily true , but some of what it says has been, even some matters which other sources have not initially reported. There is no way of dealing with RSss except judgement in the individual instance. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of

point. Since the Mirror is permitted, so should the Mail. That approach is ineffective, far better to be direct. Also, when a source is unreliable, it is unreliable for everything except its own opinions. We don't know if Ed Milliband really wrote the op-ed or if it is a hoax. And if it were a hoax, we would not expect Milliband to complain since the publication is considered unreliable. Furthermore, nothing published in the DM has any weight, unless it is reported in other publications, since weight requires that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (my italics). Hence we could not use the op-ed in any case. TFD (talk

) 04:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In this edit,

The Mirror article is not a tabloid article about him, it's an opinion piece he wrote himself. It's clearly an acceptable source about his views. Consider the five criteria from

WP:SELFPUB

:

• 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim — It isn't.
• 2. it does not involve claims about third parties — It doesn't.
• 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source — It doesn't
• 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity — I think publishing a fake opinion piece from a public figure would probably get attention.
• 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources — The article isn't.

I don't see any problems with it as a source for his views. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a very clear consensus here that yes,

Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary. Fish+Karate

10:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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

---

See also:

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources § Breitbart

Should Breitbart be deprecated as a source in the same was as

WP:DAILYMAIL and other partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy? Fact checkers find large numbers of Breitbart stories to be misleading, false or both and the site admits to pushing fake news.[25] Guy (Help!

) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinions (Breitbart)

• Support as nominator. We have something over 2,500 links to Breitbart, many of them as sources in articles. I think that Breitbart is not a reliable source. Sometimes it's being used as a source for what Breitbart says, in which case it is not independent. It's my view that we should not source anything to Breitbart other than strictly factual and uncontroversial facts about Breitbart on the articles related to Breitbart and its people - if a claim is not covered in more reliable sources then it's not significant and probably
  WP:UNDUE, if it is, we should use them instead. Guy (Help!
  ) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Every second spent removing content which can only be sourced to Breitbart is well spent. Do not allow using Breitbart for RSOPINION. (see my comment in the Discussion section)wumbolo ^^^ 12:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Mixed - Obviously biased, but quite reliable for attributed statements of opinion (viewpoint) - less reliable for statements of unattributed statements of fact. Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The site does not admit to promoting fake news (the link provided - [26] - has this in the title, but the contents are editorial discretion of what not to cover). Breitbart is indeed highly biased, and certainly is questionable, however despite some factual errors in reporting caught by fact checkers (which have caught more mainstream outlets as well) - they generally do have editorial controls and do not promote fake news. They are certainly fine for sourcing attributed opinions of their writers (who may be notable/due is some limited cases). They are definitely rank low on the reliability scale, but they are not the Daily Mail.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• The site does not admit to promoting fake news Seriously? You're using THAT as a criteria? --Calton | Talk 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are lots of news sites that have biases, we accept them using criteria like whether they're a "well-established news outlet", and context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Biases aren't the issue here. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can say they're not. But the supposed sources for e.g. that Breitbart admits to faking news happen not to show that's what Breitbart said, only that if their bias is the other way then they'll derive that. Incidentally among the complaints from surprised editors about the Daily Mail close, one of the closers said: 'I think the biggest issue would be that the RfC was not listed on "Centralized discussions".' Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can say they're not. Of course. And they're saying that BECAUSE BIAS ISN'T THE ISSUE. Seriously, have you read a single word written here? --Calton | Talk 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope that a closer will ignore Calton's shouting and look at the word "partisan" in the RfC introduction, as well as editors condemning Breitbart as right-wing, propaganda, etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope that any closer will ignore your bad-faith attempt to assign motives despite people's plain statements. And it's in boldface in the apparently vain hope that you would actually read the words written instead of pretending not to. --Calton | Talk 16:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Only use Brietbart as a source for attributed opinions, never for claims of fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support being biased is not the issue (addendum: but skewing coverage for political purposes is part of it), but not fact checking is. for any facts of import there should be other sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Replying to the addendum, how is skewing coverage for political purposes a part of fact checking problems? The New York Times is no stranger to skewing coverage for political purposes, but it's still one of the best fact checking organizations we have (if not the best). wumbolo ^^^ 14:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  Funny that you're linking to a duly bylined opinion piece and calling it "skewed coverage by NYT." These are views of the writer NOT New York Times. No news media outlet is perfect, but you should first understand there's a whole host of differences between a newspaper, its staff and opinion writers. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Breitbart is complete and utter trash. It can not be trusted for statements of fact, and should be given as much weight as random wordpress blogs and pure
  talk
  ) 14:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Longstanding reputation for publishing utter falsehoods, fabrications and blatant distortions about living people it opposes, and having no meaningful fact-checking structure in place whatsoever. The
  Reliable sources guideline specifically states: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Breitbart has the opposite of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk
  ) 14:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

While an article needs to be based on sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, we have more leeway when supporting specific statements within an article. Biased sources and sources with poor fact checking reputations can be used as a PRIMARY source for supporting statements of opinion and viewpoint. We have to attribute such statements so the reader understands that such statements ARE opinion (and not accepted fact), but the have their place. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart can't be used as a primary source, because they have on at least one occasion fabricated a byline, so we can't know where a quote originated. (see my comment in the Discussion below) wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure we do... the quote originated with Breitbart itself. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

There is one instance (known) of a fabricated byline - and they retracted it hours later saying it was an internal joke that slipped past editorial controls... Which actually demonstrates they do retract mistakes. (Not to mention multiple other RSes that run April 1st gags... Or fabricated items). Icewhiz (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per talk page discussion here:
  talk
  ) 18:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support One of the more notorious peddlers of fake news.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• support and thank you. There is nothing at that site that is useful for generating content aimed to summarize accepted knowledge. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The sooner the better! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Mostly Support Breitbart is not a reliable source for most topics. However I would grant a rare exception in cases where they are talking about themselves. In such circumstances I think it could be cited provided it's done in a manner that does not suggest in wiki-voice that we are affirming the veracity of whatever they are claiming. In other words whatever claim of fact is being presented would be worded in a manner that leaves it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. But in general I would prefer we stayed away from them altogether. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

After digging into this a little more, I think we can just say no to Breitbart. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Breitbart has a long history of producing hoaxes and disinformation.
  Ktrimi991 (talk
  ) 23:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - At issue is a couple things, I think. One is whether Breitbart should be considered a reliable source for statements of fact, generally speaking. The answer to that is clearly no. The other question is the extent to which Breitbart would bring enough
  WP:WEIGHT to include attributed opinions expressed therein. Again I would say no, but only generally. For this latter kind of usage, I think weight would be determined by coverage of those opinions in other sources, in which case it's probably better to just cite those other sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk
  \\ 23:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support: makes sense & looks like it's heading to a "snow" support. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Breitbart seems atually worse than the Daily Mail to me--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - among the worst of the fake news spewers. The only time we should ever link to them is to provide references for things said on their website in articles about this site itself or its contributors. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as a blanket ban, but should be 100% clear that is only is for meeting RSOPINION and not any RS for facts. While Breitbart may have little reliability in fact-based reporting, they still publish opinions without any apparent problems as we'd have with Daily Mail. So we shouldn't be treating it as a fully DM-style ban but strictly that it should only be used for opinions of its authors under RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 04:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason as the Daily Mail. If you cant distinguish fake from real, its out as a RS. It might be OK to cite as an RSOPINION source when the author is a source worth quoting, or when they are talking about themselves; so oppose a blanket ban. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - no exceptions Its a rare occurrence when a trash source like Breibart picks up on something notable, which is not covered elsewhere by a mainstream source. Even sourced material on the actual subject of Breibart should only be considered noteworthy if reported elsewhere. Edaham (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support The oppose arguments given here (only 2 of the 3 opposes actually gave a cogent argument) are entirely unconvincing and simply melt in the face of the numerous lies Breitbart has been caught publishing. We forgive mistakes, even when they arise out of a source's bias. But Breitbart full on lies. That's just not something we can work with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - far right wing propaganda, not news. Reyk _YO! 07:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that Breitbart is more propaganda than news... but as a primary source for statements of what the viewpoint of the right wing is (what it thinks and says on political issues), it is appropriate and reliable. That appropriate use may only apply in limited situations, but they still exists. Hell, there are even situations when it is appropriate to cite Mein Kamph, and Breitbart is far more “mainstream” than Mein Kamph is. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Blueboar I have to contest your phrasing, "what the viewpoint of the right wing is "... Breitbart has shifting agendas and I don't know if has represented any one consistent viewpoint. It seems to be more a chaos agent than anyone's voice. And i don't know exactly what you mean by "right wing" but there are some on the right who call it the trash that it is.... Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

But broadly, most RSes call Breitbart "right wing". It may not represent the part of the right that are more centralist (or that were probably centralist before the center shifted left over the last few years) hence those opinion pieces about it; that's also a question of how far right that these RSes put it (some calling it "far right") But more often than not, if an RS is documenting some reaction that they need to find a right-wing source for it, Breitbart seems to be the go-to if they can't find what they want from Fox. (Mind you, this CNN suggests a number of other reasons). --Masem (t) 13:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Recognized as generally unreliable, for divisive propaganda and instances of fabricated information. Also easy to find reliable sources about it. —PaleoNeonate – 12:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Given their track record, I'm not even sure we can use them for statements about themselves. And not even within shouting distance of reliable or even truthful. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support even as a source of opinion, unless it is a response to something about them. As it stands, we have to keep getting into discussions with editors that think it’s RS. O3000 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - This "source" is already de facto banned for almost every purpose because of their poor reputation. Why not make it official?- MrX 🖋 20:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Breitbart has far too much history of fabrication, and of attempting to create news from non-issues. Let's not link to it at all here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support subject to the standards exceptions for sourcing non-controversial things about itself (
  WP:PRIMARY). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions}
  14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support generally unreliable like most agenda driven news sources. --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support propaganda, not news. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support or rather "Does anybody think it's usable as a source to begin with?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Because of well-covered issues with fact-checking. On the issue primary sourcing: as others have noted, even using Breitbart as a primary source probably raises
  due weight issues. It's worth noting that the site, at least as of late last year, had an article tag for "black crime". That is indicative of a pattern of sensationalism and racist panic-mongering that renders it highly suspect even as a primary source. It's 2018 and the media environment is pretty diverse. If Breitbart is the only source saying something, it suggests that a lot of other sources have seen it and decided that is outrageous or unfounded. Nblund ^talk
  01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support source of propaganda & fake news.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It absolutely should not be used, due to its reputation of poor fact checking (if not creating outright falsehoods) and sensationalism/propagandism. I don't think it's really accepted as a source anyway, but wouldn't hurt to make it official. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support banning Breitbart and anyone who tries to use it as a source. This should have been done at the same time as the Daily Mail ban. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support: it is well established that Breitbart is not a reliable source, except as a primary source for statements about what Breitbart said and the like. I'm glad we're finally having an RFC to establish clear consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons the reasons Guy mentions. -sche (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I did not !vote in the Daily Mail RfC, but if I had, I would have opposed its ban as well. The basic point is simple, and laid out in
  WP:DAILYMAIL. The text in question referred to Galloway's interview with Saddam Hussein. During that interview, by Galloway's account, Hussein offered Galloway some Quality Street chocolate, as a small point emphasizing Hussein's (and Iraq's) supposed Anglophile nature. As far as I can see, absolutely nobody doubts that Galloway did actually meet with Hussein, and nobody thinks that Galloway made up the anecdote (you can find a ton of secondary coverage of this anecdote). Yet, this admin felt free (through full protection) to wholesale remove the only published primary text of the interview, as well as the anecdote, simply because it was published in The Daily Mail. I don't necessarily blame the admin here: I blame the Daily Mail RfC.

  Next is Charlie Gard case, where SlimVirgin used a quote from the Daily Mail to flesh out a certain aspect of the case. My reasoning as to why she was right to do so is given here (ignore the side-drama about COI). The point is, again, that context matters for reliability. Absolutely nobody claimed that the Daily Mail had simply made up something (which would be stupid of them to do, given that it's public record and several other outlets reported it as well). The use of the Daily Mail was because tabloids are naturally more interested in this kind of stuff, and so go into more detail. In this case, the Mail (and the The Sun) published a longer quote (which was abbreviated in the other sources). But the proscription against The Daily Mail hobbled discussion, because people took a categorical stand that it is never "reliable".

  As I see it, this kind of formal ban on Breitbart has no upside, and only downside. And the Daily Mail precedent is terrible. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

  03:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Kingsindian above, and thanks for the ping. The existing ban on the Daily Mail is needed to protect our readers from well-meaning editors who misunderstand sources. The rationale for the ban, "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication" makes it unusable, and I think this applies here as well. --John (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per
  WP:RSCONTEXT in complete agreement with Kingsindian. With the only additional comments that when a statement is supported by secondary RS the use of a "banned" or less reliable source to provide further background information to a user (should they choose to read sources) does provide more context to the user themselves. I support the consensus that Breitbart is not generally (almost never) a RS. However, I strongly oppose the idea of banning the source from the encyclopedia entirely no matter the context even when used in conjunction with other sources to support a well attributed statement, as has been done with the Daily Mail. Additionally, there are times when a cited source such as Breitbart with in text attribution has been used to help convey more "sides" of a story and avoid the appearance of POV and to cover material directly related to Breitbart, as Guy has said. A ban on the use of Breitbart (or other sources) as a source may ultimately lead to the deletion of such content. Endercase (talk
  ) 15:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  A ban on the use of Breitbart (or other sources) as a source may ultimately lead to the deletion of such content. That's the point :-) wumbolo ^^^ 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  The use of Breitbart as source while not adding any sort of credibility for the average user does at least add some level of notability. The carte blanche banning of its use as a source is ill thought out in this editors opinion. Not to mention it would directly damage Wikipedia's reputation as a impartial source of information. While evaluating the use of the source in context allows for removal of untrue or poorly cited information without the image of "Like many other online sources Wikipedia is banning Right Wing information" that will no doubt follow the closure of this !vote due to SNOW. While the ultimate removal of properly attributed information that would follow decreases our usefulness as a source of information. Additionally, the removal a of a Breitbart citation from an otherwise well cited and supported statement decreases the fullness of conversation Wikipedia is known for and ultimately reduces the size of our consensus. The banning of editors who refuse to comply with such a reduction will of course follow that. You must think this kind of thing though fully and not let the ease of "just banning it" lure us into an ultimately poor decision. Context must be evaluated and removing information doesn't generally improve our usefulness as an encyclopedia even if it may improve our efficiency. Endercase (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  (insert my usual rant about NOT#NEWS and Recentism here), but this is my concern too. If we're covering controversies as they happen, our goal is to document the controversy, and outside of Fox News, Brietbart tends to be the only other authoritative source on extreme partisan issues. This is not to say that their authority is necessary "reliable", only that if we need to know what the right are saying, Brietbart is the voice to use under RSOPINION. This is contrast to Daily Mail which is there to stir up the cesspool. Of course, if we were not covering controversies in so much detail as they happen (as NOT#NEWS/Recentism tells us to avoid), we'd likely never have to worry about using Brietbart unless they are at the center of a controversy; most secondary/academic sources would properly document the controversy for us. --Masem (t) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Deprecate is not ban. Deprecate raises a presumption of non-inclusion, and records the obvious fact that a source is assumed unreliable unless proven otherwise, rather than the opposite, which applies for mainstream sources with a reputation for fact-checking. We have far too much content sourced to Breitbart, given its reputation for publishing blatantly false material, and clueless n00bs don't get any hint about the issue. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it incredibly hard to believe that Endercase is still pushing this issue aftermore than a year and a half, and after his having narrowly escaped an indef CIR block (really only by a technicality of a clumsy NAC by MjolnirPants) the last time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please review

WP:ASPERSIONS, and leave me alone. Or, try again to get me banned. These types of comments add nothing to the discussion and aren't, in my opinion, proper conduct for an editor. Endercase (talk

) 14:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a regular RSN contributor, and you are not. (You caused a huge fuss here in March of last year and were promptly sanctioned before not editing here for 18 months.) I saw Breitbart mentioned, and immediately remembered what you pulled last year, and lo and behold, you were back here again saying the same thing. As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you should probably hold your tongue before insinuating that I am stalking you: if I recall correctly, you spent about a month following me around and delivering backhanded insults at every opportunity before being told by several admins to knock it off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). --
  talk
  ) PingMe 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  That's a deep rabbit hole to go into. Comparing a website that regularly publishes fake news to Fox News (

  WP:PRIMARYNEWS, also shifting the criteria for notability. wumbolo ^^^

  17:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

You say that like it's a bad thing. There is a real problem these days with low-rent news sources using press releases in place of journalists. It's a core problem with the Mail, and clamping down on churnalism would, IMO, lead to a marked improvement in article quality. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Per
  WP:RSCONTEXT. Breitbart has a strong bias (which they admit), but there's a big difference between having a conservative/populist/nationalist point of view and lying. BB should be used with caution, but an outright ban on citing it would hurt WP far more than help. --1990'sguy (talk
  ) 23:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me also comment that the source that JzG uses at the top to "prove" that BB is fake news is itself a highly biased source (and likely a rival/competitor) that took a single informal comment by a single BB editor out of context. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It's almost as if you haven't read the article on Breitbart. There are many. many sources that characterise this it as systematically dishonest. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@

Tell me all about it.

13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Breitbart is hardly better than InfoWars, and what I and others said there pretty well applies here too. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support They don't hide their bias; anything they talk about that is actually useful will be picked up by more reliable sites. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support, clearly not attempting to be a reliable source, shouldn't be treated as one. Acceptable primary source for claims about Breitbart, but not for anything else. —Kusma (t·c) 08:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. @Kingsindian: you see only downsides to formally banning Breitbart, no upside. But I think it would be very much an upside if we can get away from having long tedious disputes with aggressive newbies who insist Breitbart is at least as reliable as NYT, Wikipedia is so biased, bla bla, on and on. To be able to point to a formal ban would be a relief. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC).
• Support No reason at all to use Breitbart either as a primary or secondary source: if no-one else has said it apart from BB, do we really want to? And as a further upside, anything that saves Volunteers' time and energies that could be spent more productively elsewhere can surely only be a bonus. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support As per Iazyges. Waleswatcher (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. For a source to be used as a
  WP:RS, it must be a reliable source of truth. Breitbart is not, as can be seen from the links in this discussion. Zazpot (talk
  ) 01:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Bias does not disqualify a source from being reliable, but supporting a certain point of view at the expense of truth and accuracy does. –dlthewave ☎ 02:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Breitbart intentionally distorts the truth in order to conform to their POV, and has been caught outright lying on many occasions. This is precisely the opposite of what Wikipedia strives for. Bradv 04:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Absolute unqualified support. This is a no-brainer. Breitbart ever since Bannon took over is a deceptive alt-right propaganda rag. Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• OPPOSE I supported The Daily Mail ban because it was proven that it regularly fabricated stories. That is a different to poor fact-checking and political bias and selective reporting. Many tabloids have a poor records when it comes to fact-checking, and if we are going to ban Breitbart for bias then we may as well ban The Guardian for the same thing. I will support a ban for any news outlet if it is proven it is currently fabricating stories on a regular basis, but no evidence of fabrication has been presented in the proposal. The precedent established by The Daily Mail ban simply does not apply in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not going to "ban Breitbart for bias". Most of the Support votes are based on its factual accuracy. Please see

MPants_at_work's comment above which includes a list of verified examples of Breitbart publishing factually inaccurate information. –dlthewave ☎

15:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The precedent established by The Daily Mail ban simply does not apply in this case. I actually agree with that. Breitbart is far worse. The DM RfC came about because it was borderline between "sometimes reliable" and "never reliable". Breitbart is pretty squarely in the latter camp. Even when they do say something factual, they put such a hysterical bias on it (seriously: Fox News is biased. Breitbart is a full-on propaganda source) that it implies counterfactual claims.

Tell me all about it.

15:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You can find examples of factual inaccuracies in The New York Times, so what exactly makes Breitbart more factual inaccurate than lots of other low-rent sources that are regularly used on Wikipedia? What is the objective metric for measuring factual inaccuracies, and how does Breitbart compare to other sources in that regard? The RFC proposal suggests The Daily Mail as a precedent, but the The Daily Mail was fabricating entire stories. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

so what exactly makes Breitbart more factual inaccurate than lots of other low-rent sources that are regularly used on Wikipedia? Umm, the number of times they do it, duh.

What is the objective metric for measuring factual inaccuracies Umm, counting them. Duh.

but the The Daily Mail was fabricating entire stories. Umm, so is Breitbart [37]. Duh.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do at least a minimal amount of research and make at least a minimal effort to be factual in your arguments. Until you learn to do that, just consider me (and every semi-reasonable person on this site) utterly unconvinced by your objections here and don't bother trying to argue anything.

Tell me all about it.

17:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately my comments don't need to be taken seriously by somebody as rude as yourself, just by the closer, who hopefully will be more grown up than you. Since I am not the party seeking action from the community the onus is on those proposing a blanket ban to make a solid case for their position. Unlike The Daily Mail ban, this proposal has not done that. The comments here have not convinced me that Breitbart is an inherently unsafe source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing rude in my comments, just me pointing out what should be blatantly obvious to any intelligent person. In fact, the last line contained some truly helpful advice. Before you go accusing people of bad manners, you might want to stop and consider that the medium you're communicating in doesn't allow you to hear tone or see body language. But then, that's the sort of thoughtfulness that has been completely absent from your comments thus far, so it might take an special effort on your part. But you should really try. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

New York Times is "low-rent"? In any case, reputable newspapers can make mistakes, but will rapidly publish errata when they discover that. It's one of the distinguishing aspects of reliable journalism. —PaleoNeonate – 10:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider The New York Times low-rent, but I don't see why Breitbart is being singled out over say the Daily Star or Daily Express for a total ban. If the proposal was to ban tabloid style news sources along with other dubious online news sources such as The Canary (website) I could be on board for that. My problem with this proposal is that no evidence has been put forward that Breitbart is disproportionately worse than many other sources that are not banned. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan, your argument above is, as it currently stands, an example of whataboutism, a form of logical fallacy. Zazpot (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't actually presented an argument, except to say I am not convinced by the case for banning it. Look, not only did I support a ban for "The Daily Fail" I was one of those advocating it since 2011 (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Time_to_axe_the_Daily_Mail), so I am not exactly on a "free press" crusade here. I have an open mind, and if someone shows me fabricated stories and interviews and convinces me we have another Daily Mail situation here then I would support the ban. If Breitbart was fabricating entire stories or had put up fake interviews then I would have absolutely no problem with banning any publication that did that. When I have worked on far-right articles I avoid "low-rent" sources such as Breitbart—among others—for factual claims; that seems like basic common sense to me but they can be useful for opinions and interviews because it is a pretty well connected news outlet. I'm not saying that a source like Breitbart is as trustworthy as the NY Times, but I think it has its place if it is used judiciously. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants: Re fabricating entire stories, you said "Umm, so is Breitbart [38]. Duh." But the actual Breitbart article begins -- prominently, right at the start -- with "UPDATE: ... this story has been updated to clarify ..." etc. Breitbart did wrong within an article, Breitbart said oops publicly, Breitbart corrected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not the "actual" Breitbart story, which you'd have seen if you'd read so much as the first sentence of it, or if you'd read the article I linked to. This is. So what you're saying is that Breitbart added a single sentence update containing the correction correction to a follow-up story, while leaving the body of the followup story intact and saying nothing whatsoever on the main story. Also, the "correction" claims that the article has been altered to state that the man was not suspected of starting the fires, yet opens with the sentence "The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) issued a detainer request on the Sonoma County Jail for Jesus Fabian Gonzalez, who was arrested Sunday on suspicion of arson in Wine Country fires." The correction itself is a straight-up lie. So if that's your evidence that Breitbart issues corrections, you'll have to excuse me while I laugh my ass off at how weak this argument is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

(1) The article you linked to is a Buzzfeed page which points to the page that I referred to, not the page that you came up with out of the blue after I followed what you linked to. Anyone can check this by looking above at what you said (before the word "Duh"), at what I said, and at Buzzfeed's link over the word "reported" -- compare URLs if it's not obvious immediately. (2) The correction says "Jesus Fabian Gonzales is not suspected of the recent Sonoma County fires that killed 40 residents", which was what was wrong, and which is not in the article any more. (3) ICE did indeed issue a detainer request and Gonzalez was indeed arrested on suspicion of arson in the area, as multiple other sources attest (e.g. LA Times or USA Today, so Breitbart didn't have to correct that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Because User:JzG's source that Breitbart "admits" it's fake news is as fake as he claims they are. It's a sensationalized biased reading of the source read through partisan goggles. An RfC with an honest and unbiased start might persuade me to go the other way.--v/r - TP 01:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@

ISIS. It has sometimes published these misleading stories as part of an intentional strategy to manipulate media narratives via disinformation." The Mail does this to a much lesser degree. Paul Dacre is an ardent xenophobe and far-right blowhard, but not everybody at the Mail is, and the enforcement of far-right opinion in Mail reporting is usually the result of deliberate action. With Breitbart, it is their core mission, it is who they are. So the Mail is a once-mainstream news organisation whose right wing editorial bias has turned into a drive to push a political agenda (e.g. Brexit) whereas Breitbart was never a mainstream news organisation, it was founded and is entirely devoted to pushing an agenda far to the right of even the Reagan-era Republicans it decries as the "Republican establishment". The NYT is not a propaganda outlet, the Mail is an accidental propaganda outlet, Breitbart was built as one from the ground up. Guy (Help!

) 08:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: With Breitbart, [the enforcement of far-right opinion] is their core mission, it is who they are. [...] Breitbart was never a mainstream news organisation, it was founded and is entirely devoted to pushing an agenda far to the right of even the Reagan-era Republicans it decries as the "Republican establishment". [...] Breitbart was built as [a propaganda outlet] from the ground up. Do you have any evidence for your repeated calling Andrew Breitbart so far-right? Because I don't find it remotely likely that you're correct. And while Andrew Breitbart wasn't respected by all Democrats, he was certainly not a fringe figure among Republicans, both moderates and radicals, as you claimed. Read: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Even peer-reviewed publications are routinely heavily biased, for instance toward's a researcher's preferred theory or towards an experimenter's experiment uncovering significant results. Bias will be present in anything written by a human. Sources from either side of the political spectrum are always going to portray the other as peddlers of false stories. Citing one against the other is meaningless. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. It's not about bias, it's about fabrication, propaganda and lack of fact checking in service of that bias. Breitbart is recognised as unreliable by multiple independent sources. We have an article and everything. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of centrist-left and centrist-right sources, as well as moderate left and right sources which are routinely used on Wikipedia and are considered reliable sources. Those have nothing to do with this particular case. Citing one against the other is meaningless. We indeed have

WP:YESPOV. When a source reports about the opinions of a particular person, it's different, of course. We should attribute personal opinions as such (per the same policy), when necessary. With a source like Breitbart, everything is personal opinion, often contradicting reliable sources. Its readers would like to believe that all sources are similar, but that's simply not the case. —PaleoNeonate

– 10:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Is Breitbart biased? Absolutely, so is the NYT's, the Washington Post, Fox News, and just about every other media outlet. But I have not seen any evidence that any factual mistake was done on purpose by Breitbart or not corrected when caught. Mistakes have been made, but that isn't enough. -Obsidi (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There's evidence of that right above, in my response to betty logan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is true that Breitbart got this one wrong, and they issued a correction for it. But I think you are mistaken as to the correction. The man in the Breitbart story did set a fire in that county, and he was arrested for it, and he did have an ICE detainer, as the updated Breitbart story discusses. What Breitbart got wrong was that the fire wasn't the deadly fire that killed several people. It was a rather small fire that deputies were mostly able to put out before firefighters got there. Breitbart saw that the guy was arrested for arson in the county with the wildfire that killed a lot of people and jumped to the wrong conclusion, and issued a correction. In fact, given the correction was issued to correct their mistake, this provides evidence in favor of them having editorial policies that correct such errors. I have seen FAR worse with the mainstream press. ABC News falsely stated that Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn had allegedly violated the Logan Act on Donald Trump’s instructions [45]. Fox News peddled the Seth Rich conspiracy theory before issuing a correction [46]. The NYT's incorrectly linked the scalise shooting with the 2011 shooting of Giffords. [47]. In comparison, the Breitbart mistake was an easy one to make, unintentional, and corrected. I don't see the problem with Breitbart. -Obsidi (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi: OK, please link the retractions / corrections for the following stories evaluated as false or grossly misleading by independent fact-checkers:

• "Expert: 170 Registered Voters in Ohio’s 12th District Listed as Over 116 Years Old"
• "Anthem Kneeler Says NFL Siphoning From Breast Cancer, Military Donations to Give Social Justice Causes $89M"
• "Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise"
• "Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records"

There are plenty more where those came from. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Just because some other source disagrees with the opinion of the article doesn't make it untrue. We must look at the facts presented and see if those have been disproven without correction. As Snoops says concerning #1 above:"At the time of the August 2018 Balderson-O’Connor special election, the 12th Congressional district’s voter roll did include 164 registered voters ostensibly aged 116 or greater." Now they go on to say that the pattern does not suggest voter fraud but rather simple recording error. But the facts presented in the Breitbart story were proven true by snoops. Also as to #2, here is what snoops says: "These reports are based on a 30 November 2017 story in which San Francisco 49ers player Eric Reid said that the league would be shifting funds from existing charitable commitments in order to pay for an $89 million social justice program over the next seven years." That sounds to me like the claims made in the story you cite are true (there is no mention of Black Lives Matter in the story currently that I could find nor in the wayback citation for it that snoops cites). As to #3, this is not a dispute about any factual claim by Breitbart, but the underlying study that Breitbart is citing to. Every factual claim by Breitbart in the story appears to be accurate (although the underlying study they are citing to appears not to be). Can you please cite these independent fact-checkers on #4? -Obsidi (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And there, in a nutshell, is the problem. You don't appear to understand the difference between opinion and fact. Breitbart probably do, but prefer the former anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Breitbart not only lacks a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but is known for the opposite. Of the five times Politifact fact checked its articles, 2 were found to be "false", 2 to be "pants on fire!", and only 1 was "mostly true". The ratings on Snopes are similar. The problem is not that Breitbart is merely biased, but that its bias leads to deceitful reporting and misrepresentation of its own sources. For example, look at "Revealed: 1,000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Germany’s Oldest Church Alight on New Year’s Eve" where Breitbart claims that "a mob of more than 1,000 men chanted ‘Allahu Akhbar’, launched fireworks at police, and set fire to a historic church". The article was based (at least partially) on online reports from Ruhr Nachrichten, which responded that Breitbart's article distorted their own reporting. This was widely reported in reliable sources. Breitbart's response was to call it "Fake 'Fake News'" and double down on its account and miss every point the other sources made. In a stunning display of obtuseness, Breitbart mentions the "few points of apparent contention: the size of the mob in question, the religion of the men involved, the age of the church involved, and the size of the fire caused"...which is basically everything about the story. Breitbart is the type of source your uncle brings up to spread birtherism conspiracy theories and we shouldn't allow that on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Woodroar: With regards to the Obama article, it was absolutely true. wumbolo ^^^ 14:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  Sources can be "true" yet misleading. The article purports to say something about Obama's changing biographical details, that "Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times". Yet the title ("The Vetting – Exclusive – Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’") and bulk of the article are about a document that supposedly proves Obama was born in Kenya. The author mentions an effort to fact-check the document with its original editor, Miriam Goderich, and that's that. The remainder is a laundry list of insinuations about Obama. Breitbart doesn't update the article to reflect that later that day, Goodrich said the mistakes were her own, which not only invalidates the document but undermines the claim about Obama's changing "public persona". It's massaging the facts until they tell the story that Breitbart wants to tell. They do the same with reporting from Ruhr Nachrichten to imply that an angry mob of Muslims torched a church when that's not at all what happened. It's no different from sensationalist true-crime stories that walk you through how the accused committed some horrendous crime but end with a "gotcha": it actually didn't happen that way at all and the accused is really innocent. Except Breitbart articles leave out the gotcha, simply misrepresenting the facts to tell their own version of the truth, which...isn't the truth at all. Woodroar (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support — per Woodroar, Breitbart doesn't seem to be following the golden standard of journalism, to say the least.
  Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 08:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support As unreliable a source as a trashy Tabloid ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 14:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Qualified Support Breitbart often runs articles from reputable wire services, like the AP and AFP. We should allow citations to such content, while baring original Breitbart reporting. —
  talk, contribs
  ) 19:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• As someone who has sometimes gone over stuff cited to Breitbart to make sure there was nothing absurd or which could be cited to a better source, I've noticed that its AP / AFP links are almost all dead now. I believe they used those early on when they were building their audience, but eventually dropped them. So it's unlikely to come up (and those links can be replaced because they're dead, rather than because they're Breitbart.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Breitbart still uses AFP reporting. See, for example, [48] this report from Sept 16 2018. —
  talk, contribs
  ) 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The obvious solution in a situation where an editor would want to use a Breitbart article with an AP/AFP byline would be to just find the content on a different website. For example, a web search for the first paragraph of that Florence article turns up a whole pile of better websites running the same content, even AFP itself. There's no need to try and carve out an exception for AFP/AP content on Breitbart when one can get the same information elsewhere. And I think a ban has to be all or nothing, otherwise I see it as inevitable that we will get overrun by attempted wiki-lawyering to include Breitbart references. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that most news agency content on Breitbart can be replaced. However, I think that it would generally be disruptive editing to remove citations to Breitbart hosted news agency content without providing a replacement source. —
  talk, contribs
  ) 01:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I don't like the use of blanket bans, but Breitbart seems to satisfy the conditions that required the Daily Mail one - an obviously unreliable source, with a reputation for inaccurate stories, which a few users nonetheless insist on trying to use as if it were a reliable news source. The last item is crucial for me - a ban like this has to be used cautiously for
  WP:BITE reasons if nothing else; there are countless obviously-unreliable sources that aren't worth the cost of taking this step for. But Breitbart seems like it requires it, since it keeps creeping into articles. My only concern is that doing this again could open the floodgates to attempts to codify a strict, extensive list of unreliable sources, which is undesirable. RFCs like these should be reserved for situations where there's a clear and pressing disagreement that needs to be settled with at least some degree of finality, rather than trying to nail absolutely everything down. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 20:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Breitbart should only be considered to be a reliable source as to what the editorial opinions of Breitbart are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - the Breitbart London headline today was "‘Civil War Is Coming to Europe’ Warns German Politician" which is claimed to be from an /unnamed/ city politician. To report this sort of stuff as news is typical. Just Chilling (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support with some possible exceptions to using it for opinions. Renata (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• 'Support Intentionally publishing fake news and jokes with semblance of credibility and later retraction. This is hallmark of everything but reliability. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Do not cite for facts, and Oppose, allow citations for statements of Breitbart's social opinions Whether a source meets "reliable source" is in context. Breitbart is excellent as a reliable source for presenting the worldview of its audience. We removed the Daily Mail because of problems with "fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". Breitbart has a reputation for doing this also, but the difference is that Breitbart has recognition as presenting the worldview of a large demographic which has United States government and global power. The president of the United States endorsed Breitbart as an information source on many occasions and appointed that publication's editor, Steve Bannon, to a high government-oriented office. While I agree that Wikipedia should not present the information that Breitbart reports as undisputed facts, I do think that it is correct to summarize and cite publications like this with a qualifier that the paper presented a position. Using a model like "Breitbart reported that..." is an ideal way for Wikipedia to summarize the views of all sorts of publications. This is going to be a perennial challenge with many sensational publications covering many topics. Just so long as we demonstrate that the views of the publication are not fringe then we should summarize those views and present them. I do not think that every sensational publication needs a large audience and top-level government support to be worth wiki summarizing but it does make the case more clear. I want to share an example also. I developed an article about an activist event related to net neutrality, which is a hot political issue. Breitbart criticized this activist event. I wanted to cite a Breitbart publication to show what perspective opposes this activism. Another user, @Sirkh1: argued against this at Talk:Day_of_Action_to_Save_Net_Neutrality#Breitbart. I do not agree with Breitbart's views but in this case Breitbart is leading opposition to the social issue and one of the most important voices to include in the discussion about this event. Sensational or not, they are the powerbrokers over the government policy and a target of the activism. It is necessary to show various sides of a debate and demonstrate which group or publication takes which side. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I have an awful feeling that this is very similar to the Daily Mail issue. It does seem that some editors have a grudge against conservative leading publishers. While we may not agree with the editorial stance (and I certainly don't when it comes to the likes of the Guardian, but I still use them to cite things), we should not allow any political views we may have get in the way of being able to use a right leaning publication to illustrate a right leading stance on an article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about whether sources are left/right leaning - it's about accuracy. As with your approach to the Guardian, I don't much like the Telegraph or the Financial Times, but I recognise they have reputations for professional, fact-checked journalism, so I am happy to use them as sources. The issue with Breitbart isn't its bias, it's the fact that it publishes disinformation and outright fabrication - there are examples all over this thread. You can't believe anything they publish, whether or not you agree with their world-view.GirthSummit _(blether) 19:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support with exception for quoted opinions. Seems like a very similar case to Daily Mail. If no other sources can be found, I would not be inclined to trust statements from Breitbart alone. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - sites like Breitbart should not be used for claims of fact, as they are obviously biased. Opinons, maybe - but not claims of objective fact. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Local consensus can determine how much weight that website should carry. Prior to the death of Andrew Breitbart, I see nothing wrong with it as a source. Wikipedia has too much of a systemic leftist bias, already. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as a general statement, support only as a warning This has nothing to do with leftist/rightest bias. It is at present a remarkably unreliable source for facts dealing with US politics in the broad sense, but it is reliable for its own opinions, and I think can even be used with care as a source for the general views of its followers. Most of its use in WP I think represents either of these two permissible uses; anhything else needs to ber looked at very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's fake news. BigDwiki (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support I don't think Breitbart is complete "fake news" like many of you are saying, but it has obvious problems. funplussmart (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Extreme support Breitbart is not reliable. Even when they print something true, I'd want it verified in another source before qualifying it as true. Therefore use other sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support – As others have said, this is not a left/right issue (I have been calling on the community to issue sanctions against the use of
  talk
  ) 13:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinions (break 1)

• Support I thought this was already the de facto practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per examples posted of inaccurate/false stories. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Surprised it isn't already listed as an unreliable source. I for one would never trust anything they publish. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support A tempered bias in political leanings is one thing (and present in just about any news outlet); outright lying and fabrication is another. Breitbart has crossed into the latter territory long ago, and in WP terms, the AGF has definitely run out. There's no mileage in having to probe everything that comes from Breitbart for internal rot when so many better sources are available. Let's spare ourselves and our readers the aggravation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not a RS.
  talk
  ) 08:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support a wise woman once said if someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Breitbart has shown their asses time and time again.Trillfendi (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support as long overdue. Breitbart's self-proclaimed mission is to wage ideological warfare rather than offer legitimate journalism, which alone makes them a poor choice for a
  reliable source. That their ideology can best be described as white nationalism just makes it all the more disturbing when they are used as a source by either a well-meaning editor unfamiliar with what they're about, or by a less well-meaning editor who does know what they're about but has an ideological axe to grind. 28bytes (talk
  ) 17:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per
  WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't think anyone reasonable claims Breitbart as a reliable source. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)}
  18:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per information given about about how they spin/create stories to serve their ideology. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per
  contribs
  ) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Most of the reasons for opposing are along the lines of that there's a difference between being highly biased and lying. I think we can say that Breitbart falls into both of those categories. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm vaguely surprised that we hadn't established this already.
  talk
  ) 01:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Breitbart should not be used for anything but citing an author's opinion, where the author is an important figure. Of course
  right great wrongs. — Bilorv_(c)(talk)
  20:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as someone also said above, I thought a Daily Mail-type ban was already in practice. I've never opened Breitbart, but based on the Snopes list I'd say it's unusable for anything other than
  WP:RSOPINION, and maybe that too, since we could well be inviting readers to keep browsing the site after they open it from the citation. Daß Wölf
  21:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There is too much history of it simply being a purveyor of deliberate misrepresentation. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support No way should this be used as a source. talk to !dave 13:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support and strongly so. We should not be using a far-right/white supremacist hate site to source content here. 'nuff said. Acalamari 14:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Breitbart)

• Breitbart fabricated a byline, later claiming it was a joke. [49] [50] wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Breitbart falsely claimed an undocumented immigrant started the Tubbs Fire.
• Breitbart intentionally falsified and skewed coverage of Roy Moore and the women who accused him of sexual abuse. "I think that's the playbook here," he added. "And I think it's part of the reason why it was so important for Breitbart to continue our coverage of the way we covered it ... and for Steve in particular to hold the line -- it's not just about Judge Moore, it is not even just about establishment, anti-establishment. It's about what's coming next for President Trump."

Our article on Breitbart News is literally filled with discussion of the ways they've repeatedly and unashamedly distorted the truth in service of ideological goals. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The header of this RfC violates the RfC guidelines, in particular guideline 3, which states that the RfC header should be short and neutral. In what universe is that header "neutral"? It's arguing for a position. I understand that Wikipedia practice is often confused on this point: for instance, headers for

WP:RMs

are allowed to be non-neutral. Still, the guideline is perfectly clear here.

I suggest that

WP:DAILYMAIL"? Then move the rest of text to a "support" !vote at the top of the survey section. That's the normal way in which I start RfCs. Kingsindian ♝ ♚

03:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So you want me to ask for a source to be deprecated without stating the objective basis for the request? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of an RfC header is to ask for people's opinion on a topic, not provide your own. You are free to add your own opinion along with everyone else. See this for an example. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct. And my opinion is in "opinions". These are the facts. Breitbart is a partisan site with a poor reputation for factual accuracy, fact checkers find large numbers of Breitbart stories to be misleading, false or both and the site admits to pushing fake news (see Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News). Guy (Help!) 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It's very simple. The RfC header is required to be neutral. This one isn't: it's taking a position. It doesn't matter what you think the source says. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Our standards of

Tell me all about it.

14:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's the definition of neutral: not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.. The RfC header is not the place to argue for a position. It's the place to present the question (namely: should Breitbart be banned as a source). I can't imagine that people don't understand how to start an RfC. Then I can only assume that this obtuseness is on purpose. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that definition about obfuscating relevant facts in order to present a false balance between an obviously right and an obviously wrong choice. Have you ever been to

WP:NPA before you cast more aspersions on an admin. Finally, if you think there's even the slightest chance that the wording of this RfC has any impact on the outcome, you should head on over to WP:REALLIFE. And probably stay there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

04:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the "false balance" about simply asking a question, without any injection of argument? The RfC header is not about NPOV at all; it's about asking comments on the question. You are wilfully ignoring this simple point.

I'll make the following proposition. Find a sample of 10 uninvolved Wikipedians, show them the wording of the RfC I proposed, and the wording which currently exists, and ask them which one better follows the RfC guidelines. Care to bet on the outcome? Say $5, to a charity of your choice. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the "false balance" about simply asking a question, without any injection of argument? What, you couldn't be bothered to read the link? Presenting two options as if equally valid (when they are not) is the very definition of a false balance. A reader unfamiliar with Breitbart could read your "neutrally" worded question and immediately think "We should never be banning potentially useful sources!" and thus color their judgement in evaluating the question, or lead them to respond without evaluating the question. Meanwhile, the actually neutrally worded question that contains the very reason why the question is being asked in it would inform such a reader right off the bat why this proposal needs be seriously considered.

Care to bet on the outcome? Say $5, to a charity of your choice. Make it $100 and have at it. You're the one casting aspersions on the OP, so the burden of proof is on you to make your case. Of course, when you go pick out ten editors all known for their extremely conservative views, I'm gonna call you out on being blatantly dishonest. But I'm sure you'll have a blast proving yourself wrong in one way or the other.

Tell me all about it.

14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a subtle but importance difference in the documenting of something controversial in presenting both/all sides of the case in a neutral manner, and attempting to give false balance by trying to validate all sides. (This unfortunately has also gotten lost in the current NOT#NEWS/Recentism problems too) We absolutely should try to state, without any commentary or analysis, with equal balance, a summary statement of what each side of a controversy contends using their statements/opinions to the best of our ability - that's necessary to neutrally documenting a controversy. However, anything further to try to validate that stance, which involves what evidence, claims, and conclusions to support those statements should be a matter of using WEIGHT of RSes to support, and if it is clearly that one side's rationale is not getting the type of coverage, then so be it.

But how this comes back to Breitbart is understanding that on issuing of summary statements, particularly on the current array of partisan issues, is that the mainstream sources do not really document what the right has to say with a neutral summary, often labeling the material far right/white nationalist/etc. to sway readership/justify their stance. That itself is a whole different issue but the point is that the actual summary of the right-wing side of the argument is infrequently documented in a manner appropriate for our use from RSes, but is documented in that way from works like Fox and Breitbart, and sometimes only by Breitbart. Understanding that asserting the summary of what one side's stance is on a controversial topic from their own words requires only an RSOPINION source, then that makes Brietbart more often the best source to use for that, hence why blacklisting it is shortsighted. Using Breitbart subsequently to try to validate that stance though is not acceptable (and of course for anything factual otherwise). --Masem (t) 14:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely should try to state, without any commentary or analysis, with equal balance, a summary statement of what each side of a controversy contends using their statements/opinions to the best of our ability - that's necessary to neutrally documenting a controversy. However, anything further to try to validate that stance, which involves what evidence, claims, and conclusions to support those statements should be a matter of using WEIGHT of RSes to support, and if it is clearly that one side's rationale is not getting the type of coverage, then so be it. I read this, and re-read it, and I don't see how it contradicts what I said. I'm not sure if you were trying to argue with me or were agreeing with me, but I agree with this. It is a verifiable fact, and not in any way an opinion or subjective judgement that Breitbart is a "...partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy," I suppose you could argue that "poor" is a relative term, but relative and subjective aren't the same thing. There is no evidence that contradicts this fact. Breitbart publishing one accurate story doesn't say anything about the accuracy of another story, for example. So the question, as presented, literally states the most relevant, verifiable fact which the participants should consider. That may not be balanced, but it's perfectly neutral.

Tell me all about it.

15:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My point was more about Presenting two options as if equally valid (when they are not) is the very definition of a false balance. and clarifying that there are subtle issues here that if we are documenting a controversial topic, there are ways that Breitbart may be needed to document it appropriately to summarize the points of contention, but not in a manner to try to validate a stance and leading to a false balance. Yes, there may be other sources that cover a right-wing stance statement that are better than Breitbart as suggested below, if those can be used, great, but that may not always be the case. --Masem (t) 16:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There are many websites and newspapers that are fine for right-wing opinion, better than Breitbart. Fox, WSJ, National Review, The Times, the New York Post, The Economist, the Washington Times, Quilette, The Dallas Morning News, The Hill, American Thinker, the Daily Wire, OANN, Il Foglio, La Nación, Die Presse, El Mercurio, Le Figaro, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, Kathimerini, The Chosun Ilbo, The Daily Telegraph, to name a few. And there is plenty of websites with a pro-Trump POV which we can safely use per RSOPINION instead of Breitbart. RedState, the Daily Caller, Fox, Twitchy, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner and the Conservative Tribune. wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We can use Breitbart opinion regardless of this RfC, which says "deprecated as a source in the same was as WP:DAILYMAIL and other partisan sites" [sic]. The Daily Mail RfC ban is not about opinion. Have a look at a Daily Mail discussion on WP:NPOVN particularly the confirmation about attributed opinions by three of the five editors who "closed" the Daily Mail RfC (Tazerdadog, Primefac, Yunshui). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the DM RFC was even stronger to point out that the only time it can be used for RSOPINION is when it is statements from its paid staff, because they have been caught editing statements from other contributors or people they interview. It is basically a no-go to use as a source anywhere unless the DM is a central element of a topic. While Breitbart is not good for factual information, I do not believe there has been any type of mangling of comments made from non-staff people - eg what people are quoted to have said is what they have said. --Masem (t) 16:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no reference to RSOPINION in the Daily Mail RfC discussion, and no conclusion that Daily Mail opinion can only be used if it is itself the source, and no conclusion that opinion authors must be paid staffers. "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Attributed opionions" is the crux of RSOPINION. I agree that the conclusion that it only had to be paid staffers was my bad memory but the re-statement in the above link still affirmed that part of DM's blacklist was because they faked quotes. Breitbart has not been shown to have the same issue.

My whole general issue with how this discussion is going is that editors are equating the reasons to bar BB the same reasons we used for DM. But they are very different situations. DM is for all purposes a celebrity tabloid, BB is a heavily-biased news source that plays favorites, but doesn't act like a tabloid, they've attempted to show editorical judgement to a degree (nowhere close to NYT's record). Both should be barred from being an RS, no question, but for all the biased coverage that the BB gives, and misinformation it sometimes uses, it still presents its own unique viewpoints on topics that should not always be discounted, and where BB is not necessarily central to the story. Maybe I'm overconcerned here and as long as there's reasonable IAR allowances that it can be used, but I'm seeing editors talk of removing BB at first sight as with DM, thus feeling that people do not want any wiggle room for the use of BB even as RSOPINION; I don't think that's a smart idea in the long run. --Masem (t) 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This RfC proposal is for a ban the same as the Daily Mail's, which didn't ban authors' opinions, so if editors wanted to ban Breitbart authors' opinions they'd need to start a different RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

But what about using BB as a source for opinion-type quotations and statements from people that they interview (some whom RSes on the left would never touch with a ten foot pole)? If we were talking the DM ban, we'd never allow a DM source to be used that way, but that's because we know they fabricate. BB is not great, but they haven't been shown to outright fabricate others statements, so argubly that BB should be fine as a conduit for opinions of people they interview.

To be clear, this is not to allow BB to be used to rely "factual" claims made by others they interview. This would not allow for us to include the "fact", "dihydrogen monoxide kills one million people daily", if the only source for that was a BB that had an interview with a Dr. Smith that made that "statement of fact" , but would be reasonable if Dr. Smith said in that BB interview "I believe dihydrogen monoxide is the most deadly substance out there" to be used to attribute a statement on Dr. Smith's article about his opinion of dihydrogen monoxide. --Masem (t) 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart is known to take quotes out of context, for example this. An RS needs to present both the quote itself and any context and analysis with accuracy. –dlthewave ☎ 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

So do many sources on the left, though clearly the better RSes do not play that game. It's certainly not a issue unique to Breitbart, but this is also different from outright fabrication and alteration which we know the DM did. --Masem (t) 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, they did fabricate a byline, apparently to out Ben Shapiro's father as a writer for the site. One fact that was missed in the uproar over that incident was that Breitbart had, up to that point, allowed Ben Shapiro's father to publish opinion pieces defending his own son without bothering to disclose the absurd conflict of interest. That level of unscrupulous behavior raises serious doubts that they are even reliable for the opinions of their own authors. Nblund ^talk 18:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is not a "side". HTH, HAND. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy is relative to the scientific evidence supporting it, context is very important. There are a number of reasons we don't allow original research, no matter how accurate it may be. The same concept applies here. It was once considered factually accurate by a number of RS at the time that the earth in the center of our "solar system", some people who disagreed were sometimes even burned at the stake. If wikipedia had been around at the time, our articles on the issue would likely have still contained a reference the heliocentric model. Though dubiously cited, maybe even often removed, the "factually inaccurate" heliocentric model would have occasionally had its own article, likely marked as poorly cited and maybe even "protected" due to edit warring. This outright "banning" of sources regardless of context is troubling to me, reminiscent in some ways to the dark ages. While I am not saying that is the case here, it is worth noting the historical context of your argument. Endercase (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Scientific/RS consensus changes over time and Wikipedia changes to reflect that. We do not, however, include the current fringe/alternative opinion on the basis that it may one day be accepted. This is a discussion about whether or not to deprecate a source based on our current policies. If I understand your argument correctly, you are asking for a fundamental change to our

Five Pillars, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", which states that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources". RSN is not the place to make that proposal. –dlthewave ☎

15:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's amazing how often the Galileo gambit is used when trying to establish false equivalency between fact and bullshit. What those raising it forget is that the suppression of the heliocentric model was not at the hands of scientists, but the church. It is in fact an example in support of restricting Breitbart, because Breitbart rejects facts that conflict with its ideology in exactly the same way the catholic church did. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty to say about John's patronizing comment above, but the simplest one would be to point out that the reference removed was to The Mail on Sunday, not The Daily Mail. They are sister publications, but have different editorial staffs. For instance, the former supporter Remain, while the latter supported Brexit. Most people on Wikipedia, in my experience, don't even know the difference, and moreover, don't care.

Ignorance is no sin (I am ignorant of many things). But ignorance mixed with arrogance (like editing a page through full protection) and the force of a formal ban is a very bad idea. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As to should Breitbart still be allowed to be used as a source in conjunction with other sources that are reliable; a relevant discussion going on in Talk:PragerU#Non-RS and is directly related to the result of the consensus here. As such any input on that issue would be appreciated. Endercase (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

When we have RS, we don't usually dignify unreliable sources by including them as well, though there are exceptions to all rules of thumb. There would need to be a good "necessity" argument for doing so. --

talk

) PingMe 18:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression wikipedia was more about allowing our readers access to more information so they can form their own educated opinions in a quick and easy manner; not about "dignifying sources because we chose to include them". Could you please cite a policy that explains this concept in more detail? Endercase (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are by definition deprecated. We try to avoid using them. There are exceptional situations, so a good argument for the necessity of using them must be made and a consensus must accept that use. --

talk

) PingMe 18:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So you can't cite a policy explaining why the inclusion of a particular source (even if unreliable) in Wikipedia for use in conjunction with other reliable sources is incorrect? But, you still hold that being used as a citation in Wikipedia is some kind of "reward", and has nothing to do with providing more information to our readers? Could you please clarify? Endercase (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think what I've written should be sufficient enough for enlightenment. If you reject it, that's on you. I'll let others weigh in. --

talk

) PingMe 18:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sidenote, BullRangifer removed a rather long comment they made in this thread it might be worth reading for context. Endercase (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Endercase: Umm, I'm seriously reconsidering what I said on your talk page the other day after reading this.

I was under the impression wikipedia was more about allowing our readers access to more information so they can form their own educated opinions in a quick and easy manner; No; Wikipedia is about giving our readers accurate and verifiable information so they can form educated opinions. We don't care about "quick and easy" (see the Simple English Wikipedia), we don't exist to "allow access" (else we'd just be a list of sources) and we absolutely care about the accuracy and verifiability of the information we present.

So you can't cite a policy explaining why the inclusion of a particular source (even if unreliable) in Wikipedia for use in conjunction with other reliable sources is incorrect?

Tell me all about it.

14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RSCONTEXT: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. While I may not be a supporter of Breitbart or it's tendency to be revisionist this is the controlling policy and, quite frankly, I agree with it. If Adding an unreliable source alongside a reliable one only carries implication that the RS is wrong in this case then readers have a right to know that a particular statement, even though apparently worthy of inclusion, is also supported by a traditionally unreliable source. Failing to cite it or, even as has been the case that I have seen on multiple occasions, deleting the citation and attempting to ban the offending editor if they try to recite it, seems to me to very much like a strong desire to lie by omission. The citation of a source like Breitbart by your own admission adds valuable context. While I'm definitely not making the claim that it should ever be used a sole citation for the inclusion of content I do firmly oppose this type of attempt to effectively remove the source from the encyclopedia entirely, which is based on the actions of the editors at Talk:PragerU#Non-RS the true intent of some of those voting in support of this motion. I see very little attempt to challenge this kind of consensus and I am proud to be in the minority view in this case. I believe it is a fundamentally slippery slippery slope to use generalizations in support of opinion and do not believe that my merly opposing the majority view in this consensus is disruptive or even NOT HERE despite some claims and implications. Endercase (talk

) 01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please describe to me the context in which this article is a reliable source for claims of fact. To help you out, I will give you a relevant fact: the claims in that article are false. You might note the lack of correction, or the fact that the story is still live on breitbart.com. Both of those are relevant facts, as well.

Pro tip: If you have any answer other than "there is no such context", then you need to resume your mentorship at a minimum, because that is a serious misunderstanding of our policy. The rest of your argument consists of the re-assertion of things you've previously stated, and merits no response as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not defending that article nor was I ever defending that article. You have clearly shown that editors are quite capable of evaluating such articles separately and in context. Though, you (and others) have proven that the sole use of Breitbart Infowars and other such drivel in conjunction with each other is definite red flag and should be, as I advocate above, be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, you have not demonstrated to me why the

this essay, which should almost never be used" then you should change the policy. I mean using a essay to define a policy might be controversial. But, after all, that is what you are effectively advocating for and even what the 'new' description box for RS/N seems to imply. Seriously, why not just do this the right way and change the policy? Endercase (talk

) 02:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think this RfC would "override" policy in any way, then you need to read the close at

WP:DAILYMAIL, then re-read it, then re-read our policy, because you are clearly not understanding what is being proposed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

19:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. If I point to a working clock and say that it's noon, that should be sufficient; if there's any doubt, we would consult another working clock. If I point to a broken clock, whose hands happen to be pointing at twelve, and say 'Look at that one', you'd think I was mad. It doesn't confirm that it actually is noon, nor does it imply that the broken clock is suddenly reliable. We shouldn't cite sources that we know to be dodgy because they happen to be correct about something - if a better source says it, just use the better source. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This Breitbart discussion is another example in which the mediabiasfact check could assist our decision, although it only confirms it in this case. Once again leaving left/right bias alone stick to the fact check

A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN Fact Checkers. Here are just a few of many as an example:

Breitbart Duped by Fake News (Again) (False)

Following Joe Kennedy’s speech, Breitbart says Fall River, Mass. not built by immigrants (False)

Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim (Pants on Fire)

Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri? (False)

Trump’s ISIS Conspiracy Theory (False)

(Andromedean (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC))

A selection from Snopes

From Snopes (and you know you have a problem when Snopes has an entire category devoted to you).

• Did Ohio’s 12th Congressional District Have 170 Fraudulent ‘Voters’ Over 116 Years Old? (No)
• Did ‘Muslim Immigrants’ Commit the Most Knife Crimes in London in 2017? (Unproven)
• Did George Soros Say His Life’s Mission Is to Destroy the United States? (No)
• Did the NFL Stop Donations to Breast Cancer and Military Charities in Order to Fund Black Lives Matter? (No)
• Were Scientists Caught Tampering with Raw Data to Exaggerate Sea Level Rise? (No)
• Were Illegal Immigrants Arrested for Starting California Wildfires? (No)
• Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri? (No)
• Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists? (No)

Even where the article is not unambiguously false (e.g. ‘Violent Mob’ Forced Police to Shut Down a ‘Patriot Picnic’ at Chicano Park?, Breitbart's reporting is sufficiently inaccurate that it is essentially a lie. The confrontation was initiated by the right-wingers, there was no violence, and they were escorted form the park by police because they were causing a problem.

Snopes' evaluation of Breitbaert stories shows that, where checked, clarification of laziness added they are almost always false or misleading. The record of Occupy Democrats is actually somewhat better, and there is pretty clear consensus that Occupy Democrats is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The point is already established that Breitbart is not to be used for claims of fact as an RS. The point that is being missed is that unlike DM, BB still should still be used for relevant RSOPINION, which doesn't matter what type of mis-truths it has otherwise published. As long as they have not been demonstrated to fabricate opinion statements (as DM has been shown to have done), then it is fine for RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 17:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A dishonest opinion presented as a valid one is disqualifying for RSOPINION. Alex Jones is RS for what insane people think, after all, but, as with Breitbart and the alt-right, only because he is the one telling the insane people what to think. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not in the business of trying to judge/discern and prevent the use dishonest opinion as long as 1) we aren't trying to cite is as fact and clearly mark it as attributed opinion and 2) it is a opinion recognized as authoritative for the side of the argument/controversy that it is on. That's where the impartial factors of NPOV come into play. --Masem (t) 22:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually we do this all the time. For example, if we want to describe David Duke's views on something we almost never cite him in his own publications. We should do the same here. If Breitbart says something significant we can sourcevit from third party RS discussions. I can't see why we would link to the motherlode if alt-right agit-prop to describe some piece of alt-right agit-prop. If it's covered elsewhere then use that, if it's not, it' UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it is nearly always better to find a reasonable reliable source to avoid using primary source directly to state what a person or group believes, but that's on the basis that the third-party source is either directly quoting or summarizing without additional commentary. But too often in today's media on these partisan issues, some of those left-leaning sources do not accurately capture what those on the right have said, not quoting directly and instead summary language that spins the view to their own way. (The right-leaning media does this too, they just do it more often). My point is that in a case where, say, a BLP on the right has controversial views and no one has actually quoted them or the like outside of BB, then this is where BB should be brought in to quote what the person had said, as to document the controversy; this is not UNDUE at all to establish the core argument. But absolutely nothing further would be pulled from BB in this case, assuming BB is not central to the controversy. If there are other mrore reliable right-leaning sources like Fox that do the same job, then better to use those, but I am considering where BB may be the only source with this material. We just want to make sure that the core issues are documented accurately and without influence of partisan reporting. --Masem (t) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Quoting

WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources ... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. This does not support using unreliable sources just to make sure that "both sides" are presented. If a viewpoint is not covered by reliable sources, we don't cover it on Wikipedia. RSN is for discussing the reliability of sources within our current policies and guidelines. Your suggestion would require rewriting policies and guidelines, which is outside the scope of RSN. –dlthewave ☎

18:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To neutrally document a controversial topic that involves two or more different viewpoints, an impartial statement of what those viewpoints are should be presented first and foremost, even if that means turning to SPS to get a quote of what that statement is, if no reliable source is covering it in any detail. After that, trying to validate or justify those viewpoints is wholly subject to UNDUE, meaning that there may be zero sources to validate the contrary view. That's fine, but that initial statement of what one side of the conflict is asserting should be included for neutral documentation. That also means that the controversy actually has to be something seen in reliable sources; a fringe group that has an issue with a topic but that no one ever refers to at all would not be able to push their agenda onto WP that way. But if RSes have identified something as controversial, even if they hand wave that there's no evidence or to disprove the contrary view, or the like, we should at least state with impartial clarity what that opposing view is. (Its like how most courts present opinions: they state what both sides brought to the table irregardless of how weak or insubstantial the claims are, and then write the decision based on the weight of evidence and case law to justify which side to pick.) This might mean using BB as a voice of the not-so-near-right an an authority to state the contrary opinion strictly as an RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 18:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I just learned that Breitbart declared War on Wikipedia back in April, at least per HaAaretz. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would keep that in mind as circular reasons: they "declared war" after Facebook started using WP to combat fake news, which include BB due to how its article here was written about, which had led to new editors to try to "correct it" but which failed, hence making BB upset over that. If BB was actually talking legal threats to WP, that would be a totally different manner but the article above gives no indication to that, just that they were upset with how WP treated their page in the fake news wars. For us, that already means we've decided BB is not reliable for facts. --Masem (t) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart has been criticizing Wikipedia for a long time. The reasons are complex, but Gamergate is one factor: "Breitbart Tech" was started originally to report on Gamergate, but it has expanded to cover the tech industry generally. I noticed the phenomenon at least two years ago. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

At least part of that is from a former editor that was banned from en.wiki in wake of GG and now reports for BB. --Masem (t) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

TDA only started writing for Breitbart in 2017. I am talking about 2016. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Snopes' evaluation of Breitbaert stories shows they are almost always false or misleading. This is an irresponsible misstatement (almost certainly.) I don't read Breitbart, so I have no idea how many stories they have written, but I think it is safe to say it is more than a dozen. Even if the eight you list are all false or misleading (and that's not the case), finding 8 problematic articles does not remotely support the claim.S Philbrick(Talk) 23:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The comment above mine is made of fail. Ask me why.

Tell me all about it.

23:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:UNCIVIL to an admin like Sphilbrick. I suggest you strike it. -Obsidi (talk

) 02:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet Philbrick's comments calling someone "irresponsible" are perfectly fine. Strange that. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, if you cannot distinguish between commentary on an argument and commentary on a person, then you have no business engaging in arguments in any forum where civility is expected.

Tell me all about it.

14:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you made a personal attack, I said your comment was, in my opinion,

WP:TALKNO, it appears to me to be above a pure ad hominem, but not much more so than that. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project.. -Obsidi (talk

) 19:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What part of "ask me why" did you not understand? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

SPhilbrick is correct. Snopes does not claim that they randomly sampled Breitbart articles and fact-checked them. Instead, their methodology is to look at claims (typically going viral on social media) and fact-check the claims. Some of the claims aren't even made by Breitbart, but by third-party sources who were citing Breitbart. It's basically a giant game of Chinese whispers.

An example is the story: Anthem Kneeler Says NFL Siphoning From Breast Cancer, Military Donations to Give Social Justice Causes $89M, which is cited in the link Did the NFL Stop Donations to Breast Cancer and Military Charities in Order to Fund Black Lives Matter?. The Breitbart story does not even use the term "Black Lives Matter". It is a routine interview with an NFL player, originally by Slate, which was repurposed to add some spin for Breitbart. There's nothing original here at all (it's an example of "churnalism").

Obviously, I am not blind to the political agenda at play by Breitbart: they support Trump and oppose the NFL protests, so they will use any opportunity to overplay the divisions within the latter's ranks. But this fact does not mean that they are spreading false claims in the story under discussion. I could get a full-time job just fact-checking all the stuff written in this RfC. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

the comment above this one is also made of fail, but mainly with respect to where it touches upon the subject of snopes. Ask me why.

Tell me all about it.

14:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Does a majority of articles need to be fabricated to consider a publication an unreliable source? Even if we don't take this and this as pushing a political agenda, it would still be a case of lousy journalism, showing lack of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is part of our

WP:V policy on RS. Daß Wölf

22:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it would not need to be a majority. But its likely easy to tell when a source is covering high-profile topics and clearly mis-report or other type of errors that are quick to be pointed out and they do not take editorial steps to address them in a timely manner. (NYtimes makes mistakes too but they are slavishly dedicated to their errata section to fix and address them). BB has not show routine adherence to addressing mistakes, either suggesting they don't have good editorial oversight, or they are doing that purposely, either which disqualifies them for being an RS for facts. --Masem (t) 22:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being somewhat facetious there, probably should've added more question marks. Kingsindian is making the point that Snopes cherrypicked their complaints. The problem is, disregarding satirical publications, the vast majority of articles in any newspaper or news site have a basis in fact. It's the few blatantly incorrect and/or maliciously written details that are dangerous exactly because the readers will believe them on the basis of the factual majority. Hence, cherrypicking is irrelevant here. What matters is the size of errors and steps taken to fix them, where as you point out Breitbart shows that they can't be trusted for our purposes. Daß Wölf 01:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• My bad, out of laziness I omitted where checked. The point is not so much that Breitbart frequently publishes egregiously false material masquerading as fact, that much is well established, but that when this is identified, they will very often either ignore the facts or double down. They have false and misleading stories still online long after they have been identified as bullshit by multiple reliable independent fact checkers. And that is why they are not reliable. Their editorial mandate is to promote a far right agenda, not to report fact. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I see the edit adding "where checked" which does help mitigate the original misleading conlcusion. However, that edit isn't enough. Let me emphsize that I used to read Snopes just about every day, but have gotten away from the habit, and see that it's structure is very different that when I was a regular reader, so if I am misreading the site, I request AGF and explanation. I think it may be right that Snopes has tags, and they function very much like our own categories. (I also see something called categories, I haven't yet sussed out whether they are the same as tag or different. They also ref to to keywords in the search box. Whether this is another term for cateogry ot tag or something different, I haven't figure out.) The edit leaves the impression that the 8 items mentioned are those instances in which Snopes checked a claim which somehow involved Breitbart. However, when I searched for Articles tagged: Breitbart, the search returned 51 hits. I haven't reviewed them thoroughly to see if they have been mostly debunked, but a spot check doesn't confirm that. Is it possible they run stories which are not part of their fact-checking process? I also typed "Breitbart" into the search bar, which returned 18 pages, each with multiple entries on each page, ten or so each page. If someone know how to identify how many claims by Breitbart have been investigated, and how many were judged to be false, I'd be interested in knowing.

My broad point is that a significant portion of the real estate in this discussion is an allegation by a respected editor, which was clearly misleading when originally posted, and while edited, may not yet be accurately described.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think its even worse than that. Not only is it a small portion of the snoops articles checked. At least one of the ones cited have absolutely nothing to do with Breitbart. Two others, snoops confirms the facts given by Breitbart but comes to other analysis of those facts. Only one is a clearly incorrect factual claim that has not been corrected. Here I created a chart that can help clarify:

Snoops Article	Prove Breitbart Incorrect?	Reason
Did Ohio’s 12th Congressional District Have 170 Fraudulent ‘Voters’ Over 116 Years Old?	Rejected	Snoops confirms the facts that Breitbart uses are true: At the time of the August 2018 Balderson-O’Connor special election, the 12th Congressional district’s voter roll did include 164 registered voters ostensibly aged 116 or greater. The slight difference in numbers has to do with when the two time periods they are talking about (snoops doesn't claim the Breitbart facts are wrong). Factually this was correct, they disagree with the analysis. (Additional note by Sphilbrick - The issue arose apparently because if the state didn't know the birth date they used a placeholder of 1900 which led to a number of individuals having an apparent age of 116. This is a plausible and understandable issue. Snopes debunked the claim that there were a number of fraudulent voters, but Breitbart did not use the term fraudulent, if Snopes identified who use that term I missed it but it wasn't Breitbart so Snopes may be correct in debunking someone's misstatement but it wasn't a statement by Breitbart)
Did ‘Muslim Immigrants’ Commit the Most Knife Crimes in London in 2017?	Rejected	This wasn’t a Breitbart article at all that I could find.
Did George Soros Say His Life’s Mission Is to Destroy the United States? (No)	Agree	Looks like you got an uncorrected error by Breitbart here. This is a very old article (before Andrew Breitbart died), that I suspect is before they had their more strict factual review policies they have today.
Did the NFL Stop Donations to Breast Cancer and Military Charities in Order to Fund Black Lives Matter?	Rejected	Snoops actually confirms the facts of the Breitbart story which did not discuss Black Lives Matter These reports are based on a 30 November 2017 story in which San Francisco 49ers player Eric Reid said that the league would be shifting funds from existing charitable commitments in order to pay for an $89 million social justice program over the next seven years.
Were Scientists Caught Tampering with Raw Data to Exaggerate Sea Level Rise? (No)	Disagree	This is not a disagreement with the facts presented by Breitbart, but the underlying study that Breitbart is citing to.
Were Illegal Immigrants Arrested for Starting California Wildfires? (No)	Correction Issued	Brietbart mistook someone who was arrested for arson in the same county with setting the wrong fire. They issued a correction Consistent with our subsequent coverage of the California wildfires, this story has been updated to clarify that Jesus Fabian Gonzales is not suspected of the recent Sonoma County fires that killed 40 residents.
Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri?	Disagree	This is really a dispute about what it means to “team up.” Here is what Newsweek says in an article titled “Abortion Rights Fight Has An Unlikely Champion: The Satanic Temple” [51] Satanists. Abortion. Planned Parenthood. Where in the world would those three things have anything to do with one another? In Missouri, apparently, where Planned Parenthood appears to have an unexpected advocate in its quest to fight what it considers to be restrictive abortion laws. Here is how Slate refers to it “Abortion Access in Missouri Is Getting Easier, Thanks to Planned Parenthood and Satanists” [52]. While we can dispute the meaning of the words, this is far from the kind of clear cut incorrect facts that should exclude a source from WP.
Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?	Disagree	This is a disagreement as to if this study [53] was actually peer reviewed or not. As you will see on the second page it states “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report” And when contacted by snoops the individual they talked to said My approach to reviewing the report was the same as I have used for the hundreds of journal articles that I have reviewed. I read the report carefully and critically. I gave it a formal peer-review. Snoops still didn’t consider this peer reviewed. This is at best a disagreement over terms and not a factual inaccuracy of the kind that should exclude a source from WP.

-Obsidi (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the quote regarding Muslim knife crimes in London isn't attributed to Breitbart, but they did publish a related article that states "Earlier this year London overtook New York City as one of the most dangerous capital cities in the Western world." –dlthewave ☎ 03:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

That article also hyperlinked the word "overtook" in your quoted section to cite to the Telegraph article titled "London now more dangerous than New York City, crime stats suggest" [54]. I think it is clear they are relying upon the Telegraph for that quote.-Obsidi (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a quote. The Telegraph correctly uses "British capital" and "US city". The description of New York as a capital city comes straight from Breitbart. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant your quote, but my mistake. I thought you were referring to the statistics rather than the "capital" part (snoops was disagreeing over the statistics). You are right that is a clear factual error by Breitbart. That is two clear uncorrected factual errors by Breitbart that I have seen discussed here. -Obsidi (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I contacted Brietbart to request a correction of these two articles, we will see what they do. -Obsidi (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I love the fact that you spin Breitbart's climate change denialism as "disagreement with the facts" and the "underlying study". It's almost as if you are unaware of the climate change denialism machine funded by the

peer reviewed means. That is a basic competence issue. I do hope you never edit any articles on scientific subjects. Guy (Help!

) 08:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not "disagreement with the facts", it is the underlying study that Breitbart was citing to that snoops had a problem with. Not the statements by Breitbart. Your wrong on the

WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Instead it was published by the Heartland Institute, which is clearly not a RS (even if it was peer-reviewed). WP cares about the source who published it more than if it was peer-reviewed (peer-review is evidence for a good quality journal). -Obsidi (talk

) 12:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Not "disagreement with the facts", it is the underlying study that Breitbart was citing to that snoops had a problem with. Not the statements by Breitbart. Really? Because Breitbart called it "peer-reviewed" and a "study" (neither claim appears in the blog post in question) and the snopes article spends about 67-75% of its length on criticizing those two claims, and the rest (a marked minority of the article) on criticizing the "study" itself. But you know what? That's fine. I'm not going to argue with you any more, because I think it's abundantly clear that you lack the ability to understand the problems with Breitbart, and I encourage

Tell me all about it.

14:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(1) you are explicitly taking my words out of context. I said there was not a disagrement with facts concerning the snoops article "Were Scientists Caught Tampering with Raw Data to Exaggerate Sea Level Rise?" But then you point at the "Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?" to claim I am wrong. That is completely out of context. (2) please stop with the

WP:NOTVOTE, it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. -Obsidi (talk

) 16:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's how climate change denialism has been sustained for decades: Heritage Foundation funds an ideologically motivated "study"; right-wing news orgs pick it up and promote a "teach the controversy" approach, ideologically motivated study is shown to be fraudulent, rinse and repeat. Breitbart took an obvious outlier, portrayed it as something it is not, because they know "peer reviewed" is a term that the uneducated know to be important but do not understand, and breathlessly portrayed it as slam-dunk evidence that climate change is a fraud. That is 100% dishonest reporting, and 100% consistent with how they normally report on numerous subjects. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You have no idea how the Heritage Foundation operates. They do not fund studies like you are suggesting. They focus on policy and convincing Congress/the executive branch, not scientific studies. They do stuff like this [56], in which they review the studies out there and say what they think of the studies and how they should be used in policy. They do op-eds talking about climate change and other environmental issues, but they do not do studies like you are talking about. Now the Heartland Institute is a totally different story. They actually do studies on global warming topics and do publish studies (such as the one cited by Brietbart). Does Breitbart believe global warming is a fraud? Yes. Does Brietbart have an extreme right-wing bias? Yes. Did Brietbart publish a story on the study because it casts doubt on global warming? I suspect so. But under WP policy

WP:BIASED: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. All that is required is that the facts presented are true. Breitbart can be very biased (and they are), and non-neutral/objective opposed to the idea of global warming, and still be a RS for WP purposes as long as the facts presented are true (or occasionally corrected if they are notified that they are false). -Obsidi (talk

) 15:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about neutrality, it is about publishing stories they know to be false but which serve an agenda, and not retracting or correcting those stories once the error is identified. Breitbart engages in climate change denialist propaganda. That inherently undermines any claim that they are reliable. You know who else does this? The Daily Mail. Oh, wait: James Delingpole writes in both. This is not a "two sides" or "just the facts" issue, it's about deliberate disinformation. And that's just one of the subject areas where Breitbart does this. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the study was released is true, not false. You might think the study is false, but we don't hold RS to whether the people they are reporting on are truthful. -Obsidi (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not a study. It's at best a white paper, but actually it's closer to op-ed. As The Guardian said: "The claim is based on what can charitably be described as a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding." If you want a safe space for Breitbart's climate denialism to be accepted as reliable, try Conservapedia. Wikipedia is a reality-based project. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Other publications have also called it "peer-reviewed" and a "study" [57] The peer-reviewed study tried to validate surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. And that source is considered reliable by WP (although biased) [[58]] -Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Daily Caller? Seriously? I begin to

doubt your competence to comment here. Do you know what an echo chamber is? Have you really this little clue about climate change denialism's life support system? Guy (Help!

) 08:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's not get derailed rehashing climate science. This subsection was started presumably to provide evidence about how often Breitbart is "false or misleading" according to Snopes. Arguably, this entire section should be hatted. The cited examples are not exhaustive or representative. Furthermore, many don't even reach the purported conclusion (that Breitbart was false or misleading). There's definitely some room for disagreement about some of the entries, but I suggest that any reasonably unbiased reader would reasonably conclude that one ought to read Breitbart articles with a healthy dose of skepticism, but nothing has been presented that supports an inference that errors are so pervasive that it ought to be rejected outright as a source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that I can agree with. They are a heavily biased source, and like any such source a healthy dose of skepticism is required. Usually such reference should be

WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and not put in WP voice, unless it is a very unexceptional purely factual claim. -Obsidi (talk

) 18:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Snopes are "biased" in favour of empirically established fact, and therefore heavily biased against sources like Breitbart, which are devoted to propaganda not fact. This is Wikipedia's "bias" too. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart/Gravis Polls

A number of election-related articles include "Breitbart/Gravis" poll numbers. Gravis Marketing conducts targeted polling on behalf of political campaigns and other organizations; in this case it seems that the results go directly to Breitbart who then publishes articles such as this which is cited in

Early/Mid 2016 statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. How should we handle this? –dlthewave ☎

04:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See

push polling. I doubt these are any better than the spam I get from the Mango Mussolini asking me to rate the President's performance from "Good/Great/Outstanding". Guy (Help!

) 14:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not the definition of a push poll – the full questionnaire for even the Breitbart/Gravis polls is shared on scribd, and there are no priming questions before the ballot tests, which, needless to say, is better than some polls we include from typically reliable sources. Mélencron (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Trying to see if there was a secondary source for those that were labeled B/G, I found that they actually partnered for the 2016 election, Gravis publishing its results through Breitbart starting that August [59]. This begs the question if BB is doing anything to touch Gravis' results, which would seem extremely bad if that was meant to be a partnership. It does sort of complicate the situation that it is BB re-reporting what Gravis found rather than just republishing what Gravis found. I would contend that if Gravis' polling is considered appropriate to include (it was used in the same article for the 2012 election), then if the do the same again in the future to publish through BB, that we'd have to accept the BB post as valid for Gravis' poll results. I would not label these "Breitbart/Gravis", they are still only the work of Gravis though. --Masem (t) 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

538 gives Gravis a C+ grade.[60] I think the polling articles need to set their own standards for which polls to include and exclude, and it should presumably reflect what polling experts (such as 538 and the NYT's Upshot) say.

talk

) 15:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Given how utterly inaccurate the US political polling has been in the last few election cycles, I would say we should treat them ALL as unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

fivethirtyeight:

Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state. Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968.

Polling has been fine, not utterly inaccurate, also we'd only treat the polls as all inaccurate is if reliable sources such as academic papers or fivethirtyeight do so Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Polling being one of those forms of statistics that has a lot of wiggle room, as long as we aren't treating the polls as factual, but attributed data, then we're fine (not an issue on that page in question). --Masem (t) 21:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous opinion.

talk

) 00:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If 78,000 Republicans in three states had stayed home, Trump would have lost. Those three states were the ones Russian intel appears to have told him to target. In those states, Russian interests also worked to suppress the Clinton vote. I don't think you can draw any conclusion from this as to the accuracy of polling - there are no models for predicting unprecedented interference. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ludicrous and irrelevant point – polls are included for historical value, even the ones that got the race wrong. Mélencron (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Although Gravis polls seem to be reasonably accurate, they should not be given any
  WP:WEIGHT unless they have been published by reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎
  01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• We include polls regardless of the sponsor – I don't disagree that 1) Gravis is a terrible pollster and 2) Breitbart is not a reliable source; however, they're legitimate polls and should be included. The exclusion of polls based upon their sponsor would also imply that a many other polls sponsored by sources not considered reliable (e.g. campaigns themselves, blogs, PACs, low-profile political publications, and tipsheets) would also be removed, which I strongly disagree with. Mélencron (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not very active in this area, so could you help me understand how we decide which polls to include? It seems to me that the normal standards of NPOV, specifically DUE, would apply unless the community has decided otherwise. –dlthewave ☎ 01:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Basically... all of them, to be comprehensive? This isn't just a U.S. thing, sketchy publications will commission completely real polls from legitimate pollsters: Aftonbladet for Inizio in Sweden and INSA for Bild in Germany just as a couple examples. If a pollster conducts a poll for a party, candidate, or other partisan group such as a PAC, then the name and affiliation of the group is listed in the table. Broadly, though, pretty much every opinion poll that's conducted by a known pollster and isn't known to fabricate its data is included. Usually, that includes polling units at academic institutions, market and opinion research companies, and political consulting groups. Gravis is one such market research company that conducts political polls – you don't necessarily have the option to pick and choose when it comes to clients; a client's a client. Mélencron (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

^ What they said. Polling sponsors can have some degree of influence over the general thrust of the poll, but reputable polling firms (and even relatively unscrupulous ones) don't let them dictate things like sampling strategy and question wording - if the sponsors knew how to conduct a poll themselves, they wouldn't be paying someone else to do it for them. That said, polls are a primary source, and so they should be treated with care unless they've been interpreted by a high-quality secondary source. Nblund ^talk 03:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish.

WP:RS: reliable, independent, secondary. We can include reporting on polls in trusted sources, but the polls themselves should not be included as primary material because it is trivially easy to design a poll to deliver the outcome you want. Guy (Help!

) 08:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Motion to Procedurally Close for Lack of Neutrally Worded Question

Quasi-dubious process wonkery. Move on.∯WBG^converse 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

---

The RfC question should be worded neutrally. By having the question worded in the way that it was (specifically the last sentence), it inappropriately

WP:Canvassed people to that side of the issue (specifically its Campaigning). The people who viewed the RfC at WP:Requests_for_comment/Politics,_government,_and_law

only saw one side of the question presented, before they even came to this page. I propose that this RFC be procedurally closed and failing to follow policy on neutrality, and a new RfC with a neutral worded question concerning Breitbart be started. Anyone that wishes to comment would still be able to on the new RfC.

• Support as proposer. -Obsidi (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@

ask the nominator to reword the question. Bradv

03:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That was tried already, and refused, so more drastic measures seemed to be required. -Obsidi (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The same assertion was already made and dismissed. Breitbart has a poor reputation for fact checking, spreads fake news and engages in propaganda. Not liking those facts doesn't make them not true. Odd you should mention canvassing though. You don't edit much, yet suddenly you turn up here... Guy (Help!) 09:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Those facts are the very ones in dispute as to if a source should be considered reliable or not. As such pushing that side of the question in the RfC is inappropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

As to the Canvassing accusation. I have not been Canvassed into this discussion at all. If you would like to accuse me of that, please provide evidence of that. Otherwise

WP:AGF. -Obsidi (talk

) 12:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- Nah, the result of the discussion is already pretty clear. If it were to be shut now, that would just throw away dozens of legitimate opinions. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How many of those votes were canvased? Because if they were, they were not "legitimate" !votes. -Obsidi (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

None. Reyk _YO! 13:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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