Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271

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.

I recently cited David Irving's book The Mare's Nest on Ebensee concentration camp. I used it as a source for this information: "The main purpose of Ebensee was to provide slave labor for the construction of enormous underground tunnels in which armament works were to be housed, safe from bombing. These tunnels were planned for the evacuated Peenemünde V-2 rocket development but, on July 6, 1944, Hitler ordered the complex converted to a tank-gear factory." Another editor believes that Irving should not be cited at all, since he is a Holocaust denier. The Mare's Nest could be a reliable source on German intelligence in the last two years of WWII. I haven't been able to find all of the information about Ebensee from any other source. Is there consensus about whether or not The Mare's Nest qualifies as a reliable source? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think (as this is an early work) it seems to be more highly regarded then what came latter. But my gut reaction is still to not wholly trust anything by Irving.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Are there any recent reviews of this book (after Irving's exposure as a Holocaust denier)? I would not label his entire body of work as unreliable only because his later reputation is so bad, but caution is certainly justified. Pavlor (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Other historians (even ones that don't deny the holocaust) continue to cite The Mare's Nest to this day, though I can't find anyone who really "reviewed" the book recently. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I would not call anyone denying the Holocaust as a historian. Dumb and foolish would be much better description. Pavlor (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have no idea, but I do know that at one time his work about the bombing of Dresden held a similar status, until it was revealed how shody some of his research had been.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  At a bare minimum I'd think anything cited to him needs to be caveated with "according to David Irving" rather than in Wikipedia's voice.

  Iridescent

  08:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's safe to say that if Irving is the sole source for something then it should be excluded, and if there is any other source, it should be used instead. Remember the burden in Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. Lipstadt and Penguin were assessed as claiming the following:

1. that Irving is an apologist for and partisan of Hitler, who has resorted to the distortion of evidence; the manipulation and skewing of documents; the misrepresentation of data and the application of double standards to the evidence, in order to serve his own purpose of exonerating Hitler and portraying him as sympathetic towards the Jews;
2. that Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial, who has on numerous occasions denied that the Nazis embarked upon the deliberate planned extermination of Jews and has alleged that it is a Jewish deception that gas chambers were used by the Nazis at Auschwitz as a means of carrying out such extermination;
3. that Irving, in denying that the Holocaust happened, has misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs;
4. that Irving has allied himself with representatives of a variety of extremist and anti-Semitic groups and individuals and on one occasion agreed to participate in a conference at which representatives of terrorist organisations were due to speak;
5. that Irving, in breach of an agreement which he had made and without permission, removed and transported abroad certain microfiches of Goebbels's diaries, thereby exposing them to a real risk of damage;
6. that Irving is discredited as an historian

They prevailed. Under the old English libel law, which essentially had a reversed burden of proof.

Irving's work is systematically biased and should not be cited. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to be working in the subject area of the various Nazi camps, I strongly suggest getting the first two volumes of the USHMM's Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos - which can be acquired for free here. Ebensee is covered in Volume 1: Part B on pages 911-914. I'll note that Irving's work is NOT listed as a source for the entries for Ebensee and Ebensee/Wels II. For information on Irving's trial and much background on his discrediting as a historian - see Richard J. Evans' Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not reliable. While the book was published by a reputable publisher, it was not an academic publisher and therefore we need to look at the reputation of the author. Irving is not a trained historian and problems have been found in his writing, such as his overstatement of civilian deaths during the Dresden bombing. His notability came from finding original sources, which is why historians continue to cite his research. But historians are able to apply judgment when using books by flawed researchers. Furthermore, since historians continue to research Nazi Germany, subsequent research can make even the best sources out of date more than half a century after they were written. Current historians are aware of what is still considered valid and what isn't when using these sources. Wikipedia editors cannot do this. TFD (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable, as Irving is notorious for not having a reputation for fact checking and reliability. Mare's Nest might be Ok on some stuff, it might not, however the red flags with Irving are such we should avoid using his early publications directly.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It is probably RS for a detail like that, - no reason to think that Irving would invent that kind of stuff, as opposed to using solid documents, regardless of his later (public) obscene turn. Even in that early period what he can be charged with is underplaying or ignoring part of the documentary record he is familiar with. At the time of publication, it was hailed as an important work, and even later historians like Michael J. Neufeld, as The Mare's Nest page notes, writing in 2009, evaluated as such. By the way Neufeld's paper should be linked on that page, thus

Neufeld, Michael J, 'Creating a Memory of the German Rocket Program for the Cold War.' in Dick, Steven J (ed.). Remembering the Space Age, Government Printing Office. Washington, DC: NASA, pp.71-87. On p.81 we read:-

David Irving’s The Mare’s Nest (1965). Irving, who was already noticeably pro-German but not yet infamous as a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier, provided the most complete account on both Allied and German sides of the V-weapons campaign in the last two years of the war, but it is noteworthy that, although he did much more original research than the others, he minimized the Mittelwerk/Nordhausen story about which he certainly knew more.

As to Ebensee, some similar material can be found in Nikolaus Wachsmann, KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps,

ISBN 978-1-408-70556-8

. I.e.

In Ebensee a huge fuel refinery was set up in the tunnels originally intended for V2 development works. p.451

In addition to Dora, more than five hundred prisoners were held in the Mauthausen satellite camp Ebensee (code-named Kalk, later Zement) The prisoners slept inside a former factory building, before moving to a barrack camp, and had to dig two huge underground tunnels for the Peenemünde rocket development works.p.446 Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: If one has to ask whether the world's most notorious Holocaust denier is an authority on World War II history, then one should probably steer clear of either subject. François Robere (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That order of question is beside the point. A lot of historians with brilliant promise run wildly off the rails. Norman Stone's The Eastern Front, 1914-1917, (1975) still remains important, though he soon starting churning out junk. One evaluates works not people: otherwise a very large bag of public intellectuals would become suspect for everything they write simply because on one big question they deny the obvious. This is no exception.Nishidani (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason Irving is unreliable is that there is compelling evidence that he falsified evidence in order to support his pro-Nazi agenda. His reputation as an historian is destroyed, along with his reputation as a human. We know he lied in print, and we're not supposed to be the ones who decide whether a specific thing he wrote is one of his lies or not. Guy (Help!) 07:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yup, sources are meant to be reputable. Irving obviously ain't.

talk

) 07:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

These are all mechanical answers to a position no one defends. Sources must be reputable, not the people who wrote them. If that were so, we would never cite Caesar's Gallic Wars, because they fail to mention he was engaged in genocide.Heath W. Lowry got a chair at Princeton, though he was a known denialist of the Armenian genocide. I don't think Turkologists consider this disgrace as imperiling the value of his early studies on defterlogy. I don't believe Irving is reliable for anything printed after 1965. Paul Foelsche's vocabulary lists from survivors of the 'tribes' he massacred are still thought indispensable for linguistics Evans's demonstration that even in the Dresden book Irving's later egregiously regular habit of wriggling around data he dislikes, when not outright lying, is present, proves its case by focusing exclusively on Irving's casualty estimate, nothing else. As for remarks to the effect his reputation 'as a human' is destroyed because he denied the Holocaust, this is stupid, and eerily so in this context. Being evil or complicit with evil does not translate into being an unmensch. Were that so, an uncomfortable proportion of mankind would be dismanned of their humanity. Cognitively, man has stronger emotional reasons for denying the obvious than for pursuing the truth regardless. Scholars are trained to wean themselves from the survival value in our biopsychological prejudices, something, after a promising start. Irving radically failed to take on board. Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the difference is that (as far as I am aware) Irvings work has been widely discredited, not just some of it, all of it (bar this one book). It is not the person who is discredited it is practically every work of history he has ever written, due to falsification, obscuration and use of questionable sources (even work that had one time be highly regarded, until people actually checked it or asked about its sourcing). Simply put there is good reason to be suspicious of any book he has written. If a man tell 100 lies and one truth do we regard him as reliable for something that has not been shown to be a lie, or ask for a more reliable source for it?15:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

Yup. "Sources must be reputable, not the people who wrote them" <- in the case of a monograph like this, that's not a meaningful distinction. Since Irving has been shown to falsify evidence, nothing he wrote can be taken as reliable. If something needs to be added to Wikipedia, we need to find another source that won't make readers go WTF!?

talk

) 16:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. If this is true and significant, someone less thoroughly disreputable will have noted it. If no-one else has noted it, I'd be suspicious on that score - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are three other judgments here that try to reason, more than I would have expected. I've no brief for Irving, to the contrary. I happen simply to be loyal to what I learnt from one of the great historians of all time, who was never unnerved by tabus. Raul Hilberg recognized Irving had some impressive scholarship at his fingertips, but developed outlandish views, in part because he was self-taught and in good part a foolish controversialist. If there is a (hermeneutic) minefield, learn to walk through it. Don't just shy away.

A word of advice to lockstep naysayers, the majority. Irving's well-deserved repute as either a liar or deep-dyed abuser of historical methodologty postdates the book in question, which was roundly hailed by all contemporary reviewers, several of them, like Duncan Sandys (‘an authoritative account of the V-weapon offensive’) insiders to the actual events. Writing in hindsight of that reception, Clarence G. Lasby (University of Texas, specialist on US use of Nazi scientists) (review) The Mare's Nest by David Irving, Technology and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 3 (July 1967), pp. 429-431, gives no sign that specialists found its presentation flawed for the reasons that, in his later work, Irving became notorious. He wrote that,'This is one of the most impressive single volumes dealing with the history of World War 11 p.429) It is still cited, esp. by historians of rocketry, because of its mastery of the relevant archival documents ((1) Jeremy Stocker,Britain and Ballistic Missile Defence, 1942-2002, Routledge 2004 cites it 17 times, while (2) Michael J. Neufeld's The Rocket and the Reich: Peenemuende and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era, The Free Press, (1995) in his 2013 reprint avails himself of it several times for details). The answer therefore to Rachel's request would be that (a) it could be used with attribution for a detail (b) if alternative works don't cover the precise point at issue, something one would have to gauge by reading more modern research (c) but for the fact that the aaarbitrasry wiki consensus is, don't use it, whatever historians may think of specifically that early book. Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Irving should not be used as a source, following Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. If another source is available, it can be used instead. If it isn't, it would mean our sole source was someone Mr Justice Gray ruled had "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. As far as I can see that judgment never mentions the work in question, whose utility is still recognized by mainstream historians. A judge's ruling trumps historians' judgment.

The principle you are advancing is that any legal judgment about a writer or body's persistent manipulation of facts automatically translates on Wikipedia to categorical Not-RS? I imagine you can see where this would lead. Courts have made similar judgments on state institutions, but material thereafter produced by those institutions is widely used all over Wikipedia. That is the puzzle my chancing on this thread created. I couldn't give a flying eff either way about Irving.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you literally find no other source for the claims than Irving? You're trying way too hard to rescue him as a source - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't time to look into this. I just reread Vonnegut's Irving influenced novel on Dresden

Slaughterhouse Five by coincidence after a half century, a week ago, and then noticed Icewhiz's comment, ergo I made what seems to me an obvious point, indifferent to suspicions that, the reputed 'antisemite' might be trying to get leverage for that silly bastard. Icewhiz thinks Manfred Gerstenfeld is a reliable source giving that the most tolerantly flexible reading imaginable (here, here and here) while making the usual blind austere reflex nyet with one specific work by Irving. Gerstenfeld is widely reputed, as the later Irving has proven to be, a nutter (1,5 million Norwegians are 'anti-Semitic ideological criminals' is the conclusion he made after a few days' visiting that country). I argue always that coherence must regulate editors' calls over multiple pages. Unlike his Dresden book, I haven't read The Mare's Nest, so I examined the scholarly use of it after Gray's verdict and found serious historians still cite it. I expect from the reviews that it is perhaps the one book where Irving's later obsessive and anti-Semitic mania is absent, because it deals not with the Holocaust, but with the intricate history of two elites, scientific and political, in planning for, or defending their country from, rocketry. If you take as Sarah does, a law court's judgment as invalidating a source, then neither anything coming from Shin Bet nor the IDF, whose output is astroturfed into a huge amount of mainstream news sources, is reliable, since numerous Israeli commissions (Landau Commission etc) and the High Court have often caught them out lying, the Shin Bet committing perjury consistently over a 16 year period. No one acts on the principle Sarah implicitly enunciated, except with this Irving idiot. Nishidani (talk

) 17:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Although I´m far from the majority opinion here (all his work forever ever not suitable for Wikipedia), I agree Irving´s reputation as a historian is so tainted (well rather utterly self-destroyed) one can´t use his work without strong precaution. It is obvious even from your list mainstream historians rather ignore this book (we would need far more than a few citations for author such controversial as Irving). Myself, I would probably just look for another source. Irving was allways outside of mainstream academia anyway (no formal education in history or similar discipline, or work for institution of higher learning). Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not Reliable for anything Do you really need to ask? He has been shown repeatedly to be a bald faced liar. His words cannot be trusted on anything, couldn't be trusted to tell you his name.
  talk
  ) 07:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.0a9256d8a055 Yes yes I know that the Wshington Post is seen as "generally reliable" according to the reliable sources page. However, there is questionable content in this particular article, particually for the UAE. The passage claims "Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law prescribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned." They do not specify which lawyers or experts, how these experts are qualified to make such a legal judgement or how current their claims have been made. Also it's worth noting that all sources claiming the same "legal experts" quote or reference this source so I can't find anything confirming them. Could be WP:UNRELIABLE or WP:REDFLAG.Care to give your insight? Moneyspender (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources with a reputation for reliability frequently use anonymous sources or otherwise do not name every single expert cited in their work.

Source confidentiality is a rather widely employed practice. Given the absence of any sources disagreeing with the claim that "lawyers and experts disagree" on the issue at hand, I don't see any problems with using WaPo here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk

03:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The real source is this. That other link is just an announcement of an update to it. They list their own sources as this report from

ILGA, and vaguely the Pew Research Center, Amnesty International, and "news reports". It's not the best, and if reliable sources that give more specific details are available, those should be used instead. But nonetheless, it's reliable enough for this purpose, unless there is some reason to believe it is making controversial claims. Someguy1221 (talk

) 05:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Reliable.
  WP:NEWSORGs are not required to cite their sources, nor do they generally cite sources. An academic source on the subject would be preferred, but WaPo is generally as good as it gets for NEWORG coverage. Icewhiz (talk
  ) 07:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable. WaPo has robust fact checking and is willing to clarify or withdraw incorrect statements. We don't need to see behind the curtain every time. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable established outlet with reputation for fact checking etc.
  talk
  ) 07:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Which policies govern? Assume the statement is not challenged as an authentic representation of the politician's statement by interlocutors. Humanengr (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Didn't you already have this conversation, on this page, in this week? Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Similar — but that was about a tweet; this is about another setting — a conversation where there are interlocutors who can challenge. That wasn't covered. Thx Humanengr (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The source: Behavioral Analysis Association of Michigan [1]

The article: Rosemary Crossley

Content:

Crossley claimed in a 1993 documentary that a comatose man that she was working with could pick his own housing arrangement, but Frontline disproved this claim using digital overlays.

It's anonymous but should be fine for this purpose, I think.

I am dubious of anonymous sourcing. Why not just use the frontline source?Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I just replaced with the frontline source

talk

) 17:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I created that article a long time ago and recently a user came and removed some content claiming the sources are unreliable. This is the edit in question and the two sources he claims biased and unreliable are:

• Средојевић селектор Српске ("SRedojevć iis the new coach of Srpska") at glassrpske.com, 27-6-2008

• Republika Srpska pre 21 godinu igrala prvi meč at sportlive.ba, 3-7-2013

The first one is

There was no internet in 1992? Please have a read of the article Internet. It was developed in the 1960s, and became international in the 1970s. Something called the World Wide Web was developed by a Britisher a while after that, but still before 1992. MPS1992 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean in general use in Bosnia in 1992... I tought that was clear enough so I didn´t needed to draw every detail for people to undrstand. But thank you anyway for your explanation, is good to know you know the basics about the history of the internet. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really, I had to go to the articles to check :) But, I should also mention that references need not be webpages. Books or newspapers printed on paper are also acceptable. I am sure that in 1992 some newspaper would mention the names of the players or coach. Of course, this may not be helpful, and a newspaper source might also be challenged -- commonly such an offline source might need a very brief English translation in order to confirm that the source verifies the content, if the source is not in English. And if an editor is edit-warring over internet sources, she might edit-war over offline sources even more so. But I personally view the sources you mention as being reliable for the content you describe. I am an expert neither in sourcing reliability nor in association football in areas previously part of Yugoslavia, so hopefully others will comment with more authority than me. (Just one last thing, WP:BRD is optional.) MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That is the thing, that I don´t see a valid reason why wouldn´t those two sources be valid to source the presence in a game in 1992. What I meant with the internet was that obviously I knew internet existed already, but what we are talking here is Bosnia in middle of civil war in 1992, it was a messy situation, major crysis, few people had computers and internet was literally inexistent there for normal people. That is why there are not many websites from the time talking about the game, but I must relly on this two sources for the game in question. The game is not in doubt, there are even books about it, exemple Football in Southeastern Europe: From Ethnic Homogenization to Reconciliation by John Hughson and Fiona Skillen; but what I need is the list of players, and that is what the two sources I bring here to ask for reliability, do provide me. One even provides a copy of a newspapper from that time with the pictures of all selected players. Thank you, I hope more people just confirm it that they are reliable so we can make consensus and close this thread as solved. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

First, @

WP:RS in the first place. And that's the reason you are unable to see, which is always huge and extremely problematic (isn't it @MPS1992:). Also, you are continually approaching editors with misleading and false claims. In this thread you already made one such claim, explaining that subject of dispute is trivial thing, which is surprising since you have created two posts on WikiProject Football, in total nearly 10 Megabytes of text, explaining how really controversial and highly political this whole issue is. Now, all of a sudden, it's a trivial?--౪ Santa ౪^99°

02:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The only false claim here is your claim that these are unreliable sources. Please convince editors why these two sources are unreliable, otherwise, stop obstrcuting addition of sourced information. FkpCascais (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to assume a conflict of interest, just inform me, what was exactly controversial here, so you deleted some sourced material? Republika Srpska is one of the two entities in BIH. There is also football selection which plays its matches, just as Catalonia for an example. There are no official FIFA matches, but also have international exibitions. Sources do not have to be in English, necessarily... --Lotom (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Lotom. Also, soruces seems to be secondary and reliable. Both have their authors identified, and date of publication. I see no reason to remove it.

@Lotom: R.Srpska's existence isn't in question, nor the fact that entity have it's own regional football association. There is nothing contentious about that. However, there is no team that represents R.Srpska, not even at "exhibition level". Here's another interesting source which FkpCascais offered at one point after spending two days digging out, only to shoot himself in the foot as he obviously read only bits of its text:

It's an interview with two R.Srpska FA operatives conducted in August 2010, and from Serbian media outlet, so I am going to translate only relevant bits and operative's responses from Serbo-Croatian, which is still a considerable portion of the text:

Article intro states:

• "The Republika Srpska football team will play its first official game in September [2010] in Novi Grad / Bosanski Novi, it is announced from the Republika Srpska Football Federation through Belgrade media.

Editorial:

• "Interestingly, the match between the Republika Srpska and Serbia was recently agreed, but FIFA intervened and threatened to disqualify Serbia if it dared to play that match." (they referred to some celebration from previous year, but this or any other match never took place)

Branko Lazarević reply (FA operative introduced as "director of all FA teams"):

• "Even though our team has not played any matches, we have the coat of arms, the jerseys are in sale, and the Republika Srpska Fan Association has been established." (it's a 2010);

Slobodan Tešić reply (introduced as another RS FA operative):

• "There is no longer any reason for us not to play matches. It is time for the RS national team to come to life and get the place it belongs to and to start representing Republika Srpska football".

By the way, note that these edits are made on

WP:BLP; note that at the very moment when some writer claims that Borče Sredojević

will be appointed RS national team manager, he is already employed by Bosnian FA as assistant manager on Bosnian national team for three years and will continue in that role for four more years reaching WC 2014 finals in Brazil.

Further, analogy with Catalonia is absurd and inappropriate - Catalonia exists as a polity for hundreds of years, Republika Srpska exsits since 1996, Catalonia played football in various degree in various periods since at least FC Barcelona inception more than hundred years ago, R.Srpska never played a game, and you will not be able to fined one report online (or in any for, print, video, audio) which can confirm that they did.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to include link for this interview.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. Here is an example for the U23 squad from 2014. Teams have definitely existed, but no competitive matches. --Lotom (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

First, what about my post from above and remarks, which I made in my post, about glaring discrepancy between statements made by RS FA operatives in contrast to claims expressed by writers in some obscure Internet website (I am referring to sources provide by discussion initiator); second, let's be little bit more serious, page from this new link is a private blog (I hope that when editing you keep

WP:NOTA, what kind of football team are they if they don't play football ? I have explanation for that too, but this is not appropriate forum for that discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99°

13:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:TALK, not an evidence.--౪ Santa ౪^99°

13:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to have your claim of those sources being unreliable, you need to have those claims confirmed. "There is no mention of Sredojevic in the article?" are you joking? Look at the list of players. FkpCascais (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, the conclusion at this thread is the most important one. If vast majority agrees that sources are fine, you can´t continue claiming them unreliable, obscure,selfpublished, etc. There are more sources available about the game, but for some reason they seem to have suffered some cyber attack (how convenient) while sources confirming the game from 1992 are even found in academic books. That first game from 1992 is not controversial at any form, no one has doubts it ws played, and it is only the details about the line-ups there were more hard to find, but here we have them, and I am sure sooner or later more sources will come with more details. I don´t see your point in hidding that information. Unlike you, in the case of Kosovo while it was still non-FIFA team, I helped Kosovar editors to find the line-up of their first game: Talk:Kosovo_national_football_team#First_game_vs_Albania_in_1993. By your logic, I am Serbian, I should have tryied to discredit them, there must have been something wrong with me by helping them... There has been 30 years since the wars, your narrative of Serbian sources as unreliable and obscure is not really convincing. I collaborate with editors from all over Balkans which are constructive. I am sorry that you are someone more interested in removing info that in helping out. You also miss the point that the way you think about R. Srpska is really irrelevant. We dont delete articles or information because some group thinks they did something wrong. We have articles about the many teams that were national teams of countries affiliated with Nazi Germany. Even if world agrees they were bad, we add the info of those teams to players and coaches. You are missing many points here. FkpCascais (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't wait on me, you never intended to have me here as you didn't even informed me of this discussion, in the first place. I already made one set of arguments by introducing glaring discrepancy between sources you found, so it's actually me who waits on respond to that small problem called contradiction of source, which signals obvious

WP:SYNTH^[a]

.

My "(T)here is no mention of Sredojevic" remark is referred to part of discussion with User:Lotom, and is tottaly unrelated to your links.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I don't care about Kosovo, what is your editing history surrounding Kosovo or any other scope on Wkipedia project, I am not interested in your identity, your ethnicity, your political affiliations, and your walls of text in general. I don't conspiring against Republika Srpska, Serb people or editors, its FA, or, especially, against Internet severs containing some unreachable, invisible sources, I am not interested in "future" source, I don't conspiring to hide information (especially since I am not one who conspired to cyber-attack on any of the servers containing them), I don't care about articles on Nazis and their teams, and time past between Bosnian War and present discussion has nothing to do with the strengths of my arguments.

Not every book is "academic work", academic works usually contain footnotes and entire critical apparatus which supports it, books you are mentioning are not academic research since they are sparsely referenced, these books are non-fiction, expository and in style journalistic literature.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The last post I made to you at FOOTY was me telling you to come here to this thread to check the reliability of sources. Since this is no "incidents" noticeboard, I believe I am not obligated to inform you (I will check it right after finishing the post), and I indeed wanted neutral people giving simple answers, without this becoming again a dialogue between just us. I believe senior regulars at this noticeboard are perfectly capable of providing an answer regarding Glas Srpske for instance, without us influencing them.

Now, about the conflicting facts, you mean the several instances officials refer to the eventual game to be played in future as first one, and that being in conflict with the list of 15 games R. Srpska lists at their official website as games already played by its senior team, is that it? They are refering to the difference in level of organisation. Creating a team that would gather more regularly and will play its first game officially recognised by either FIFA and UEFA. All they are doing is recognising they would like to see a better organised team and playing at official level. But that doesn´t mean the team didn´t existed till then. Just that it didn´t existed at a level these people talking to the media would like.

The game from 1992 was clearly a non-FIFA recognised international match. Those were the national teams of self-declared

Republika Srpska Krajina. Both had territory which they controlled, and formed FA´s that gathered local players to form their national teams. None of the two got international recognition, but that fact doesn´t change the international match character of the game. Whatever personal opinions about the political aspect of the game we have, it doesn´t erase it from history. We have academic books writting about the game, as in page 3 of Football in Southeastern Europe: From Ethnic Homogenization to Reconciliation by John Hughson and Fiona Skillen, or Violent Places: Everyday Politics and Public Lives in Post-Dayton Bosnia by Tobias Greiff, which at page 287 give a usefull, concise and clear definition of Srpska team and its formation in 1992 mentioning the game, of course. I don´t understand your motive to make such an effort to exclude data about R. Srpska and specially that game in 1992. I am a football editor not because of the game so much by itself (I can´t remember the last time I´ve been in a stadium), but I like football preciselly because of this historical and social perspective. I am not involved in articles because I like one team, or dislike another, I am involved because I love to contribute to the missing pieces specially of rare historical events in which football played its role. That is why I helped Albanian editors to find the first Kosovar line-up from time they needed to play as Kosovo secretly, that is why I help about Second World War Slovakian team, Bohemian, Saar, and that is why I want to prevent the info about the R. Srpska game from 1992 to be deleted. In my view the participation of those players and coaches in such games is such an interessting and important info for the biography. FkpCascais (talk

) 16:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Where in these books Borce Sredojevic feature, where is he mentioned as player or manager of the RS national team?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

He was a PLAYER in that gae from 1992. FkpCascais (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, now change the word "player" from upper to lower case, and apology would be in order.

Now, again, where in these books Borce Sredojevic feature as player, manager, janitor, driver, whatever ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is not OK, if you made a mistake, let it be, don´t correct your earlier posts and then changing the logic of the answer of the following commenteur. Please don´t do that ever again.

Both books speak only about the game, don´t go into game details. Bear in mind I only made searches in English at books, so we don´t know if there maybe are books giving details, we´ll see. Anyway, the point here is that the game by itself is more then well sourced, now the question I brought here is if the two sources I used in the article are reliable. There seems no reason why would they lie, one even provides a copy of a daily newspapper of the time of the game, and if anyone was added wrong, the sources are enough old that the persons in question would correct the info.

Now, regardless if we find a source such as academic book, or not, my question here about the reliability of these two sites from my opening statement, still remains. I am no expert in politics in R. Srpska, I don´t know what relation has the allegations you made about current, or former, owners of Glas Srpske, but, from what I Googled out, it is a very popular media enterprise and it has extensive coverage on sports and football which is very usefull. The other website also provides me no reasons to suspect on them. There was already 3 people and all said the websites are fine.

It doesn't change anything since nobody replied to it at the that very moment, and most importantly I immediately repeated myself below in full, so there is nothing confusing about it. Anyway it was genuine mistake unlike your upper case expression, which you need to remove right now.

I'm not interested in long explanations, I asked you where in the books Borce Sredojevic is mentioned?

Maybe you aren't expert in RS politics, I don't care, but you certainly present yourself as one, to which your megabytes of text and long treatise about it and about controversial and highly politicized matter of football in Bosnia attest.

Glas Srpske has this one article on that specific subject, but if the information on the matter is important and notable enough, other less

WP:reliability and WP:verifiability

on Wikipedia.

Who said they are OK, and on what insight ? You better read

WP:CONCENSUS, before you get yourself into trouble.--౪ Santa ౪^99°

18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But that is the problem, the only one claiming Glas Srpske is unreliable and partisan is you. Please, obtain consensus for that here at reliable sources noticeboard. FkpCascais (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I warned you against

WP:CONDUCT

policies by calling your fellow-editor "unreliable and partisan" - such arguments are reserved only for references and sources. You can't use them agains others just because editor(s) use those words to describe sources. Any administrator aware of your repeated breach of these policies and guidelines would react immediately.

why are you repeatedly pushing me to take this to a Conduct dispute resolution or to request administrator attention.

Whatever concerns me, also concerns you, so I am not the only one who needs to persuade community of my arguments. Only editors runaway when confronted with discussion that goes in circles, and treaties of texts included.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You already brought this to admin attention.

So, are you able to get consensus from the community that the two sources you removed are unreliable, or not? I am becoming really fed up of your excuses. Already 3 editors agreed there was nothing wrong with using the sources for the article. You are the one making ammounts of empty unverified accusations, I am giving you a chance to get your arguments to the community and get consensus, otherwise I will start by correcting your breaking of WP:BRD at the article itself, and ask advice about your conduct which has been criticized a«by all and not supported fully by absolutelly anyone at any of the numerous threads you tryied to get your will trough. Get consensus for the validity of your own actions, stop excusing yourself by attacking me. FkpCascais (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for attention through proper channel, I just asked for directions without naming anything or anyone, it's takes time to collect in one place all of your conduct policies and guideline breaches.

Meanwhile, don't play that game with me, this is your discussion, you need consensus, you also need to start reading policies and guidelines, like

WP:CONCENSUS, before you get yourself into trouble.--౪ Santa ౪^99°

22:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What three editors said "there was nothing wrong with using the sources for the article", again--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)?

Starting from your last question: MPS1992 said "But I personally view the sources you mention as being reliable for the content you describe.", then Lotom seems to see no logic in your removal of content and sources and tries to understand why you did it, and Acamicamacaraca says: " soruces seems to be secondary and reliable. Both have their authors identified, and date of publication. I see no reason to remove it." It is not enough for a consensus but we clearly see a tendency here, the only 3 participants agree with me about lack of reasons to remove them and consider them unreliable, and no one gives you the slightest support.

For you to go around removing sources and its content claiming that the sources are unreliable, you need to have that claim about those sources confirmed, and this is the most appropriate noticeboard. I was avoiding all time to do it, but this time I will say it to you: everything you have been saying about me is basically a mirror of yourself. Even if I was the worste hooligan ever, that wouldn´t say nothing about the issue in question here. It is not me who is going to affect the reliability of the two sources. The fact that I was topic banned recently because of a totally different unrelated issue, (well, it was related with Balkans, but not with football or Bosnia) doesn´t make more right or more wrong when debating another issue. Each and every time you talk about me to discredit me, actually confirms you lack arguments about the issue in discussion itself.

I will like to highlight the fact that it wasn´t me making any controversial edits or propagating any disruptive content. All I am doing here is defending a series of articles, some created by me, from an editor who is unilaterally removing specific content with the excuse of being irrelevant and the sources being unreliable. I restored the content and asked him to discuss and obtain consensus, as per WP:BRD, he edit-warred back just repeating the excuse.

I am an football editor mostly (although I am member of many other WP´s as well) not because of some cheering passion for football (I don´t even remember the last time I went to a stadium), but because I love the history of football in its socio-economic and geo-political context. I love statistics, and I admit I give higher attention to less known probably already defunct national teams, that Cristiano Ronaldo for exemple. So here we have a case of a group of players and coaches who gathered in middle of war and formed a Football Association and national team, and played its first "international" (although FIFA-unrecognised) match. As Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed independence from Yugoslavia, Republika Srpska declared independence from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and this was what was to be their national team. After, probably much improvised, organisation, they menaged to play a game against a team in very similar situation, an also just recently formed national team of an unrecognised country and unrecognised by FIFA. At times of war this situations are normal, during WWII we had a duzen of FIFA-unrecognised national teams which played numerous games and even got much publicity. We can be free to personally have whatever opinion about these teams, the self-declared countries they represent, it is irrelevant, they were all part of football history. We are not here to glorify the allies and ignore and erase the bad guys. Santasa has this issue with Republika Srpska, which after that first game, few years later Dayton agreement came and R. Srpska became one of the two entities forming Bosnia and Herzegovina. Football Association of Republika Srpska is responsable of organising football on its territory and collaborate with its counterpart to send the best teams to form the BiH Premier League and best players to form the Bosnian national team. Besides that first ever game in 1992, R. Srpska mantained its official team but never more claimed to be national team. Its specially dedicated to the work with youth levels for which organises numerous tournaments, often intenational. The senior team has been wanting to play just as the other similar teams do Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA but has faced major opposition from the Bosniak and Croatian counterparts in Bosnia, so the senior team has played its 15 games and has ever since been like in sort of stand-by. The main senior team, just as each of the youth levels, has its own coach which are specially active in skauting talents that will ultimatelly obviously be usefull for the Bosnian national team R. Srpska is part of. The selected coaches are usually ammong the best ones, and both, being part of the R. Srpska team as player, or being nominated a coach, is a sign of recognition and reward.

What happends is that the more radical Bosniak and Croat political forces see R. Srpska FA and its teams as an inconvenient. Just as in politics, in football as well, there is a continuos pressure to somehow eliminate R. Srpska. It is not my fault R. Srpska exists and it is not my fault to add the once in time some relevant information about their team. They will not desapear if we allow editors such as Santasa to erase as much as info about it as possible. I didn´t wanted to complain, but Santasa from begining attacked me on ethnic basis. Then when justifiying why the two sources are unreliable, he made this totally biased rant against Glas Srpske... Just its start made me sick from the start "Glas Srpske is the local ideologically driven media outlet, based in Srpska entity, and run by Serbs exclusively,..." Glas Srpske translates into "Voice of Srpska" and of course is going to be focused on the issues going on in Srpska. Just as Alaskan Times will focus on Alaska. But the following is offensive "run by Serbs exclusivelly". First, how does he know that, did he counted the employees and their nationalities? And second, since when being Serbian became a crime? So, if only Serbs run some media, they are inmediatelly unreliable? Then he says these Serbs "who are closely affiliated to entity government and ruling party of

SNSD and their boss Milorad Dodik

, whose separatist rhetoric is naturally mirrored in Glas Srpske for decades,..." OK, so, to start with, Dodik, "the boss", is someone who has no simpathies at all from me, lets just leave that clear. I think RS couldn´t have chousen a dumbest president possible. BUT, this is my opinion. it counts ZERO. Both Santasa and I could stay here all day long writting what should other organisations think and conclude about him, but again, that has ZERO weight. He speaks in name of UN, USA and EU, no Santasa, you don´t say what they should say, you present evidence of what they actually say. That is why I came here to Reliable Sources noticeboard, so you can present your evidence (evidence, not opinion) and have editors to take a look and decide.

So dont accuse me of "conform with Serbian or any other ethnic feelings of editors; blp shouldn't contain such an extraordinary claims referenced by unreliable and biased sources." Me being Serbian and challenging you from deleting info about R. Srpska team and their first game has nothing to do with my ethnicity, but with the rules and principles of Wikipedia. I would equally challenge a Serbian editor if he tried to remove info about Kosovo 1993 game from Isa Sadriu article, and article I created btw and added that info about that match. I also work to expand whenever I can the Mandatory Palestine national football team and I created some articles of players and coaches and clarified some mistakes (I collaborate with RSSSF). I also contributed to some Palestinian (Arab) national team related articles from the time before they were members of FIFA. In case of R. Srpska, all I want is to source the game line-ups and had that info about that historical game in corresponding articles. I couldn´t care less if the source is pro this or that. However, in the process, I did felt that I should challenge you that you declare unreliable a source just because it focuses on R. Srpska. Even if they had a more pro-independence agenda, why would that make the source unreliable for sports for instance? To me you seemed like those Democrat radical supporters that would like to see FOX eliminated totally just because it is generally considered a more pro-Republican media and supports Trump. Don´t agreeing with some editorial ideology doesn´t make it unreliable just by itself, and in case of Glas Srpske, if they support the rulling party and are the third most popular media, well, they seem to me that they are quite reliable for what matters about R. Srpska. I see that when it comes to politics one may be cautious and compare how different editorials treat the same issue, but this was just a football game, from 1992, of R. Srpska, which is logically going to be most likelly found in sources from R. Srpska.

I made a promise to User:Sandstein that I intend to keep for all eternity. I am going to be carefull and obbey the rules and principles. However, that doesn´t mean I will not oppose the breaking of the same by some other editor. You erased information along its sources from several pages. You were reverted but you edit-warred to restore your version. You should not declare sources unreliable before getting consensus for it, specially, if apparently they seem OK. They have authors identified, one is even from a well known media, and also, there are no contradicting sources. Second thing, you should not remove categories and empty them first, and then call for their deletion after. Third thing, you should not proliferate the idea of R. Srpska team being inexistent and irrelevant, specially not when we see that ammong the Category:European national and official selection-teams not affiliated to FIFA (look also other continents) you can see it is one of which has major structure behind.

So, I let know Sandtein about our situation, since I noteced you involved him by claiming exactly the opposite, as if I was someone making controversial "partisan" edits, and you were just a por victim fighting to keep Wikipedia free of my "evil". However, from all threads and all your countless accusations I didn´t even had time to respond to half of them, all other editors either agreed with me or either were neutral but asking more details from you to understand why you think you are on the right. You did however menaged to scare many to think this was some complicaed deeply political issue, unfortunatelly in Balkans-related articles that works easily, but you failed to have even one person saying you are right. I didn´t edit-warred, you did, so your version in which the reference to the 1992 game is removed is the one that stayed in the articles. I don´t want to hear you anymore saying bad about R. Srpska, about me or my conduct (I challenge someone to find in my entire 10+ years history vandalism), or conspiracies about Dodik and Glas Srpske... Also, I have intentionally not been linking policies, like BRD, because veterans we know them. You have been a real MVP in linking essays and policies, but next time you insist that I get familiarised with consensus (you did it at least twice) and keep on this paternalising tone towards public, I will really take it as offensive behavior. You get consensus that the two sources are unreliable, and the issue is over. If you can´t, I will politelly ask you please to restore the content from the articles where you remved it. I can´t see a more fair deal than this one. Please feel free and do your best to demonstrate to the community why the two links from my initial post are unreliable. From the way you have been talking all these days to all people, that seems peanuts to you, so please, be my guest. FkpCascais (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Bellingcat a reliable source when used for this. [2]

According to Bellingcat, the suspect's Twitter account portrayed a "relatively normal Trump-supporting Republican" up to April 2017, when the account stopped posting.^[1]

The talk page discussion for it is at Talk:2019_El_Paso_shooting#does_who_he_supported_for_president_or_what_political_party_he_was_in_matter?. Note that he said he had his views before Trump's campaign for president, that not why he did the shooting. Dream Focus 22:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it's also cited to

WP:RS, but I'd say it's worth at least a brief mention. It might be more appropriate to mention his "normal" political background in the context of his radicalization via 8chan, though, which is how Bellingcat mentions it - that's why it matters; it's not just a random personal detail, it's part of their larger dive into how someone like that can get radicalized via boards like 8chan. Also, is it appropriate to attribute it to Bellingcat when it's also being cited to Heavy (making something sourced to multiple sources look like the opinion of just one?) --Aquillion (talk

) 12:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a RS, as explained above. Furthermore, the website has a good track record on covering events like these. According to CJR, Bellingcat's report on the Cristchurch shooting was "a comprehensive and contextualized report on the motives and movements of the Christchurch killer".

talk

) 12:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the source is reliable for the material per the following reasons: WP:EXCEPTIONAL, NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX and RECENTISM. There is nothing I have seen that speaks to high quality reliability of a citizen journalist which is not much above a blog site that requires expert/professional verification before it can be cited. Also keep in mind that not everything notable has to be included in the pedia. It is unconscionable to utilize massacres for partisan reasons and cite it to a citizen journalist. The same applies to the Ohio mass murders and the many other mass murders during the presidencies of Clinton, Bush & Obama. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The only one of those CAPS that is relevant to WP:RS is WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't see how the quote above is an exceptional claim, so I do not see that reliability is the problem here. In a discussion about inclusion of this content on the article talk page, I would tend to agree it should be excluded, mostly per

WP:WEIGHT. If the viewpoint is important enough to mention, it will have been mentioned by multiple news sources. VQuakr (talk

) 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Robert Evans has a decent reputaiton, he also works for How Stuff Works, and primary research on popular culture is one of the things he's known for. There's no reason to doubt this, and the source is sufficient for the statement, the only quesiotn is whether it's considered significant. I would say it is: it helps to establish the itmeline of radicalisation, soething we often cover in such cases. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How should this site be treated as a source? I'm thinking WP:BIASED, as it reports from a left-wing point of view. Swil999 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable with attribution There's no such thing as an unbiased media source, though people seem to think that only sources with a leftist POV have one for some strange reason. As with any media source, we must be especially careful to avoid treating statements of opinion as statements of fact. Beyond that I'd need to see specific usage to comment. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• I tend to be very skeptical of ANY source with the word “watch” in its title. The key is whether they issue corrections when they get something wrong (few do). Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• There is a difference between a "biased source" and a partisan political advocacy group. The Washington Examiner and MSNBC are biased sources, as they consistently publish from a right-of-center and left-of-center viewpoint respectively. But a partisan political advocacy group is not on par with these sources. Instead, Right Wing Watch should be treated on par with sources like
  WP:WEIGHT. GMG^talk
  12:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

TPUSA is considered a reliable source for puppetry and golf, I believe... Guy (Help!) 14:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, if we allow partisan think tanks as sources, then you can start with first what you want the article to say, and then reliably find a source for it. That's not how this is supposed to work. You're supposed to first find what the sources say, and then reflect that in our writing. Your or my personal opinion on anything other than the relative reliability of sources should not affect that calculation.

With the issue of DUE, on any political wedge issue, the partisan think tanks are just going to line up behind the predicable partisan talking points according to their allegiance. So you're not really measuring anything but a head count of how many think tanks are on either side. That's not that the type of WEIGHT that has any meaning for our purposes. That's not the WEIGHT of professional journalists, academics, and authors weighing all sides of an issue, evaluating all the information available, and presenting what they feel is a fair shake to all involved. Where we then take the average of all the fair shakes, and give the fair shakes a fair shake. That's the business we're in. GMG^talk 22:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)  

This right here. Unless a think tank or punditry group is routinely described in sources as an appropriate expert in that political area (eg like SPLC for hate groups), we should completely avoid using them as reliable sources, since they are a dime a dozen and can be used to craft any approach you want for an article. --Masem (t) 22:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Virtually every think tank presents its opinion as if it is immutable truth, even when they are in violent disagreement. Guy (Help!

) 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree too I think we should have some RFC on this --Shrike (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 07:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I used precisely the wording I intended to. GMG^talk 13:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That may be the case, but it is a misnomer. The word doesn't mean what you think it means.

talk

) 22:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence RS consider them reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Is there any context for the question? (ETA: The original question, not Slatersteven's) Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable with attribution. People for the American Way#Right Wing Watch is a watchdog group, used as a source by several reliable outlets. What piece and what wiki article and what context? Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• The fact that it is left-wing is neither here nor there: the facts have a well-known liberal bias, and Ronald Reagan would be considered a radical socialist in the current US climate. However, it is also an opinion site with no evidence of peer-review, so I never cite it myself and would only support its use case by case with attribution. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Caution required but I think no more than the criticism we would normally apply to all news sources. RWW is a political advocacy blog and so any statements about political positions should be couched against other reliable sources, but they're generally reliable for basic statements of fact. For example, their article titled "Pizzagater Jack Posobiec Granted Fellowship By Increasingly White Nationalist Think Tank" is not stating anything about Posobiec's fellowship which is not accurate, but they are certainly reporting it from a particular political point of view. This discussion is likely of interest to this determination, and like several others have already said, context matters. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• I expect you'd be hard pressed to find something in policy that supports using content from a partisan think tank's website for an unattributed claim of fact, whether you consider it
  non-independent source. GMG^talk
  14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GMG above. There is a significant and important difference between news sources, with editorial control, fact checking and corrections, and think-tanks / activists. Right Wing Watch takes more care over facts than Judicial Watch but they both have the same problem: information is judged through a filter of advancing a POV. That is antithetical to Wikipedia's purpose. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Generally reliable with attribution. It's really that simple. Expert opinion is always welcome, but it should be attributed. --
  talk
  ) 15:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• GMG is persuasive here. Partisan think tanks are not generally reliable sources. Haukur (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Not reliable as Per GMG. There is a difference between biased and propaganda source --Shrike (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If their opinion is
  WP:DUE on a subject, then they can be used as a source with attribution. Even very established, highly respected, and widely cited advocacy groups like the SPLC generally can only be used as sources for their own opinion (ie claims with attribution). This group is certainly not as well-respected as the SPLC, but they appear to have some citations in reliable sources, so there might well be times when their opinion on a subject is relevant and should be included. Red Rock Canyon (talk
  ) 18:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable Right Wing Watch is a project of People for the American Way, which was founded in 1981 by the producer Norman Lear, Time Inc. chair and CEO Andrew Heiskell and Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. Certainly it has a viewpoint, but that is separate from reliability. It only becomes an issue if a source is willing to falsify information in order to discredit people with whom its writers disagree. That's why mainstream liberal and conservative media are acceptable, while the website some unknown person sets up to discredit their congressman isn't. Note that it gets support from George Soros' Open Society Foundation and many other mainstream liberal sources. It has professional writers. The only caveat is how it is used. It's there to publicize news that may be ignored by the mainstream, so there may be a weight issue. I think the value of this type of source is for topics that are less covered. In an article about Donald Trump for example, I would stick to what mainstream media reports. But in an article about a little covered topic, this source could be helpful. TFD (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Treat it the same way as other partisan think tanks. Certainly not a nonpartisan source, and certainly not unbiased, but there might be some value to their viewpoint on some things. Use with caution. Toa Nidhiki05 03:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• I have a hard time imagining anything we should include that is only mentioned in Right Wing Watch and no other sources. To the OP: if you have a concern with any specific use case for Right Wing Watch, please specify it here as it makes evaluation more effective. feminist (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable with attribution As for claims that it is partisan "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means" A partisan outlet, person or group is loyal to a party or organisation. Everything and everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of left to right, that doesn't make them partisan - the Guardian is obviously left, but it is not partisan, it is not connected financially or organisationally to the British Labor party. These claims of partisanship are obviously incorrect, a misnomer. However this is a lobby group and despite its use by reliable sources and a reputation for accurate representations of figures etc, it should be used carefully. That being said, it is definitely not partisan as defined in common English language usage.
  talk
  ) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Partisan Is there any evidence that RWW or PFAW have campaigned for, are funded by or have any direct connection to any political party? If not, they are not a partisan group.
• Comment is there any evidence they've regularly gotten the facts wrong or refused to acknowledge when they have gotten it wrong? 08:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  talk
  )

People for the American Way#Activities GMG^talk 15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 22:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 22:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

How is it that I have one bar of service and I'm charging my phone with a generator, but I can still somehow manage to do more reasearch on the subject than you have apparently done? You are asking rhetorical questions easily answered by simply reading our own article, which I have linked you to, and you have still apparently not read. GMG^talk 23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I read it, and I can see no part that makes it clear that RWW or PFAW have campaigned for, are funded by or have any direct connection to any political party. Could you please point out the exact words that make such an assertion? Failing that you've not given any evidence of partisanship relating to RWW or PFAW. Lets stick to facts, no need for accusations - I read the section and can't see your point, and it's of no concern to me if you can't charge your phone.

talk

) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're falling into an old trap, not being able to discern between advocacy and partisanship. Here in Australia we have two major lobby groups on the left and right, but neither are partisan, they are very similar to TPUSA and PFAW - The

talk

) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not reliable per GreenMeansGo. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Reliable with
  WP:BIASED sources, it should generally be used with an in-line cite. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 12:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Generally reliable with attribution per the arguments above (no need to repeat them). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Not useful as a hyperpartisan "watchlist" run by an advocacy group, mostly per GNG, but it's also worth noting that their website does not in any distinguish opinions from facts. All they have are "posts" with sweeping titles like "Dennis Prager Blames Everything But Guns for Mass Shootings". Even more caution should be required, because this source would almost exclusively be used in contentious
  WP:BLPs. If they uncover something notable, some reliable source will follow for sure, so there's usually no need to use advocacy sources. --Pudeo (talk
  ) 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think

  WP:GNG applies here. Did you mean something else? — Newslinger talk

  17:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Right Wing Watch differently from the publications of these other advocacy organizations. — Newslinger talk
  17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)