Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 313

*The statement about closing was made by @CaradhrasAiguo:"I suggest this section be closed henceforth." The CON issue between @GPinkerton & @MarkH21 makes closing premature. (Posting notice of pings should remove CANVAS concerns (policy understood after pings were posted, have previously and duly clarified the pings and intention, as suggested by policy) ). Let's work towards consensus. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• GPinkerton said it may not need in-text attribution if the claim is not extraordinary and is backed by other sources (Where statements originating from dissenting organizations conflict with official Chinese claims, and where such statements are reused by go-to reliable sources, I would say they need not be attributed unless extraordinary), not that it may not need inline citations. They’re different things.
  There’s no CON issue here, because RSN isn’t expected to make blanket judgments for 8 very different sources across all contexts. This is becoming incredibly repetitive. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• It seems evident that Pasdecomplot isn't learning, and what constitutes
  WP:EXTRAORDINARY isn't a usable standard, given GPinkerton's own disruptive claim of genocide in Inner Mongolia (when his own source does not state that it definitively is) and accompanying personal attacks of apologists for the PRC. Time for the block hammer to fall on both of these two. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language
  ) 13:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks @MarkH21 for the clarification. Sorry for the repetition, but was looking for solid CON to cite in editing disputes. Hopefully a non-involved editor can make the closing remarks.
• The text (added bold) still disputed by @CaradhrasAiguo is"...over the period 1967 to 1969, it was to result in over 22,000 deaths, and 300,000 injuries, according to official statistics. Demographic studies have shown that, based on the almost zero growth rate of the population from 1965 to 1975, the real level of casualties may have reached up to 100,000 deaths. Almost every person of Mongolian ethnicity in the region was affected in some way by the events of the CR. These have a claim to being acts of genocide, and are a wound that lingers to this day." I will not comment on the motives behind the wholly unreasonable suggestion of a block. If others see it as an attempt to silence, that is their own inference. GPinkerton, where the claim to genocide can also signify a stake. In Tibet, diffs (here/in CTA) state unequivocally that PRC policy is ethnic cleansing.
• Compare Kerry Brown's careful consideration of the topic to Robert Barnett's, as introduced here by CaradhrasAiguoGiven there is recent scholarly opinion (Robert Barnett) under "Debate on the intention of the PRC" refuting the unfounded cultural genocide claims, adding the category Category:Human rights abuses in China is spurious at best...[user] CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[41]. The link on Barnett leads to, In 2008, [Barnett] said that it was time for accusations of cultural genocide to be dropped: "I think we have to get over any suggestion that the Chinese are ill-intentioned or trying to wipe out Tibet."[79] Barnett voiced his doubts in a review in the New York Review of Books: "Why, if Tibetan culture within Tibet is being 'fast erased from existence', [do] so many Tibetans within Tibet still appear to have a more vigorous cultural life, with over a hundred literary magazines in Tibetan, than their exile counterparts?"[80].
• The words "appear to have a vigorous cultural life" are not a refutation of PRC cultural genocide in Tibet, contrary to CaradhrasAiguo's quoted opinion and POV. And contrary to the editor's opinions here.

As an unfortunate aside, the words ...but nevertheless it does appear to have happened. is used for a mischaracterization of pinging editors that had recently reached out to be helpful. Likewise, the use of "appear" mischaracterizes the ping to the editor closely involved in RSN, as it was suggested. Canvassing didn't happen; an allegation of CANVAS was already addressed with a ping notice; and it's unnecessary that the mischaracerization was again brought into a RSN thread, now by an involved administrator @Valereee, since policy recommends such things belong on editor's talk, not in the page's talk, and I would imagine certainly not in RSN discussions.

Thanks again @MarkH21 and @GPinkerton. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• PDC, that was a note to the closer, which any interested editor is free to make. It was a new comment, not a reply to anyone, so I didn't indent it as if it were a reply. When you indented it, you made it look like it was a reply to someone. —valereee (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• And another comment about Barnett's rather absurd opinion @CaradhrasAiguo which does not refute the cultural genocide in Tibet: ...with over a hundred literary magazines in Tibetan. Are independent publishing houses in Tibet publishing the literary magazines without oversight or editorial control by the Chinese state controlled media? Given the preponderance of RS on censorship in China, and on the ongoing cultural genocide, Barnett's opinion that the number of literary magazines is evidence there's not a cultural genocide should qualify Barnett as an unreliable academic source. Furthermore, Barnett's opinion comes from a review for NYBook Review - it's not published in a scholarly peer reviewed journal, nor in a book. An opinion written for an unvetted book review by an unreliable academic source does not support claims that scholars have refuted cultural genocide in Tibet. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources should be discussed individually. I may be one of the users who was "canvassed" to this discussion. In any case, I watch this page and would have noticed. I think sources should be taken one by one.

WP:USEBYOTHERS may be relevant to some of these. Between the (possibly innocent) canvassing and the joining of eight sources in this discussion, I'd suggest starting over with one or two of the sources in separate discussions. Adoring nanny (talk

) 11:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• [Note by @Valereee below shifted to bottom of page from its original position in responses. Pasdecomplot ]
• As a note, this discussion likely will need a formal close with a very direct statement of conclusion that doesn't depend on knowledge of policy to understand. Also note there does seem to have been attempts at canvassing; the editor probably didn't know that wasn't kosher, but nevertheless it does appear to have happened. —valereee (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

um, okay. I have no objection to this being moved to the bottom of the discussion, but why? It's just a note to the closer. It doesn't even opine on this discussion. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The website summarises the voting record of MPs in England and Wales using a transparent process. Would it be reasonable to describe an MP's voting record using material from TheyWorkForYou? E.g. Craig Mackinlay#Parliamentary voting record. 92.40.186.147 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• N.B. the site in fact tracks the voting record not only of MPs for England and Wales, but all British MPs, MSPs, MSs, MLAs, and peers. The scope is by no means limited to one part of Britain. GPinkerton (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 (even though no RfC template has been added). The last controversy as described by RSs here on Wikipedia dates to 2007 and earlier, relating to the content reproduction of Hansard (the UK Parliament's record). They were described by The Telegraph, an established (even if deried in some circles as the Torygraph) WP:RS, in 2008 as 41st in their list of "Top 100 most useful sites". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Dubious as it in part seems to use Wikipedia, thus three is a anger of circular citing. And there is this [[42]], I begin to lean towards not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: per my comments below, there is no evidence the site takes information from Wikipedia. The Times say no such thing, so an unreferenced claim someone has added to the article should be dismissed with prejudice. FDW777 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

True, but a claim they may not cover all the facts is. This [[43]] also says much the same.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, they cover all the facts. The article says that the Scots ministers were just unhappy with how this made them look, and how some people were specifically targeting them for criticism. So they added a caveat to the website. Which is what a reliable source does. Lots of people disagree with how certain reliable sources portray them, it doesn't make the source unreliable. Koncorde (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, Reliable. The criticism mentioned above by Slater still starts with "While the facts on this site are true, there’s vital context missing" and ends with "TheyWorkForYou might be clumsy in their attempt to do so, but at least they’re trying" which suggests this is far from a takedown, and rather just demonstrates that the utility of the website is as a reliable source for facts. It's just not very good when it comes to providing the full context of parliament. The idea James Heappey says lots of nice things about climate change is great. However he still votes party line. If he doesn't agree with the party but is willing to vote with them in order to keep his job this is in and of itself very telling despite GQ handwaving about the complexities of Parliament and his personal assertions; to quote

We will have to trust his word on this; tracking every single bit of secondary legislation related to climate change that went through the Commons without a vote since 2015 would be theoretically possible, but immensely time-consuming (and dull). There is also the minor issue of the chamber having no attendance records, so we’d find out what passed, but not who was there when it happened, which would bring us back to square one.

To summarise the article "Heappey says this, we can't prove it's true, nor that he was in attendance, and we're not about to do the looking into it thing... so TWFY it is." Any circular sourcing to wikipedia I would need to take a look at; unfortunately the source for the claim is the Times which is both paywalled and the article appears to have been removed? Maybe an archive exists. Koncorde (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The Times changed website, the current article is here. There's no mention in the article (or the archived version) of content being copied from Wikipedia, I will remove the claim from the article. FDW777 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Interesting, the author isn't even the person cited in the TWFY article. Jenny Booth in the article, James Knight on The Times archive. Koncorde (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• comment In case it is relevant,
  The Financial Times:[48] (paywall), The Times [49], BBC News: [50] 92.40.186.146 (talk
  ) 16:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per the foregoing reasons - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 reliable site, reliable information. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Good source, though the summaries of the voting record aren't as useful as the voting records themselves. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Removed "RfC" from the section heading, as this discussion lacks a {{
  WP:RFCST and then restore "RfC" to the section heading. — Newslinger talk
  00:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The summaries of overall voting positions are a reliable secondary source, which I would presume due for shorter (i.e. most) MP pages – they're certainly more relevant, important, and useful as public resource than a list of committees and the name of an MP's dog. Every vote is evaluated individually[1] and I've never encountered questionable assessments but I would attribute summaries anyway to sidestep issues of nuance since it's based on a raw count. If you add voting records to multiple articles, I would consider making a table/template to be as neat and concise as possible, and to make it easier to include information like the total number and split of votes used for each summary, where they deviate from their party, the period in which certain votes were cast, and caveats,^[2] like the site does. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

While editing several pages concerning Tibet, reincarnated tulkus, Chinese religious persecution in Tibet, and Chinese sinicization policies, the governmental source Central Tibetan Administration has been challenged as being an "avocacy group". I differ, since it's an elected body which represents the exile community, and its press releases [51], statements and reports [52] [53] on Tibet are as valid as reports issued by other state governments regarding their own territories.

The CTA is cited by msm and RS including by the BBC UK [54], reported on by the NYTimes [55] and regularly cited by Indian newspapers, including The Statesman[56] and The Times of India [57] and the Economic Times [58], and the Hindustan Times [59] the Deccan Herald and by other RS internationally. It can be referred to as the "Tibetan government in exile" in sources, but that's not its proper name. Since it's formation in 1959, CTA evolved into a democratically elected body in 2011, as it is today.

For context and during the same time, it's been reporting on the brutal effects of China's policies in Tibet, called a cultural genocide since at least 2008 by observers (including here: "Dalai Lama: 'Cultural genocide' behind self-immolations" [60] ), underscored by the leaked Xinjiang papers that also exposed Chen Quanguo's role in Tibet, which it says shifted to Xinjiang, along with the expansion of Chinese reeducation camps (reported in Tibet in 2009 by ICT, and reporting monks abandonned their monastery to avoid a "reeducation center" [61] while a reeducation camp was identified by HRW as Ningtri in 2017 [62] ). ^[1] Reports of the Tibetan genocide from common RS are difficult to locate since the access of foreigners is restricted. There hasn't been a leak in Tibet like the Xinjiang papers, making CTA reports more critical for citations. Most readily accessible reports come from sources like Tibet Watch, International Campaign for Tibet (has become increasingly trustworthy) and Free Tibet, some of which also cite CTA.

What are the thoughts here on using and citing Central Tibetan Administration as a reliable source? I am confident in their reports, especially given the precept of not lying [63] which is an integral aspect of Tibetan Buddhism and Tibetans, as well as the CTA. Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The answer depends on what we're trying to use them as a source for and whether there are better sources for the information. China-Tibet relations, CTA should never be used for. No government should be used as a reliable source about political issues that government is involved in/interested in. US govt press releases can't be considered reliable for information about US and N Korea. About noncontroversial factual details, like how many people live in Tibet, we could use CTA, but generally we'd prefer to filter even that through a secondary source -- if the NYT reports there are 3M people, sourcing the data to the CTA, we'd prefer the NYT source. This is because we consider the NYT to be a source that fact-checks. We believe if the NYT quotes CTA, it's because they verified what CTA is saying. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

When foreign media report what the sources says, they attribute it in text. For example the BBC link says, "At least 80 people have been killed in unrest following protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule, the Tibetan government in exile says." It's not as if they copy and print articles from them in the same way newspapers across the world pick up AP, Reuters and other wire services. While there is no reason to doubt the CTA, there is no way of our assessing their reliability. I would only use them if reported in a secondary source such as the BBC and attribute the statement to them in text. TFD (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What's involved with assessing their reliability? Is that a process an editor is involved in by providing comparisons of reports with other RS? Can their reliability be evidenced by the citations in western newspapers (sorry, added a few diffs before I noticed responses, there are more I could provide) and in India's newspapers, as well as in other non-English papers? And, could CTA be cited inline, the way, for example, the BBC did? I ask since they are considered in Asia to be a RS, given the coverage they receive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talk • contribs) 22:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Part of what

WP:ABOUTSELF primary sources, but otherwise one would prefer a secondary source for statements made by a government as The Four Deuces also points out. For more general government documents (e.g. government agency reports), see this ongoing discussion for how government documents can vary in nature (primary, secondary, or tertiary; reliable or unreliable). — MarkH₂₁^talk

23:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To use the example above, when the US makes a statement about a US decision regarding Korea, the statement can be used, as a statement of the US's position. Likewise, if the CTA makes a statement on its decision regarding China, we can use the statement as CTA's statement. The CTA also provides statements by the Dalai Lama, which we can likewise use as a reliable secondary source - reliability is not a concern there. Since the CTA represents Tibetans, wouldn't it follow that the CTA's general statements on what Tibetans are experiencing in Tibet would also be usable? Numbers of corpses could be a different level of statement, possibly. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll also look at the discussion. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the CTA represents Tibetans—No, it does not "represent" residents of the Tibet Autonomous Region or Tibetans in the other provinces. You need something such as Gallup polling asking the specific CTA / TGIE question, not your own viewpoints, to demonstrate otherwise. wouldn't it follow that the CTA's general statements on what Tibetans are experiencing in Tibet would also be usable?—That would be a statement of fact, which other editors have already explained to you is not an admissible use. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that the CTA would be a reliable secondary source about the Dalai Lama, since the Dalai Lama is the former head of the CTA and the Dalai Lama was directly involved with the CTA until 2011. If the Dalai Lama says something in a CTA publication, then that's effectively a primary source. The CTA also isn't a reliable secondary source concerning the treatment of Tibetans by the PRC; that's an example of a controversial topic that should only use reliable secondary sources like academic sources (academic journal articles, academic books, etc.) and major publishers (e.g. Reuters, NYT, etc.). But yes, the CTA can be used as an

WP:ABOUTSELF source about the CTA itself. — MarkH₂₁^talk

23:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

In response to @CaradhrasAiguo's concern of POV, I invite him to read edits by others editors at Central Tibetan Administration to become more familiar with the topic. That's where the information is located re the first quotation; the second quotation is from a question, not "a statement of fact" at all. Regarding the Dalai Lama's statements @MarkH21, it has been 9 years since he was directly involved; he has his own web site and spokespeople; the effective separation since 2011 could apply to a contrary position, but I hear you and understand your advice. Since we're discussing this generally, would specific cases be of interest in order to salvage usable edits, stop deletions, and achieve CON? I think it would be useful in this case. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21 A point I missed making is RS (provided above) cite statements from CTA on China, and cite statements/positions from the Dalai Lama found in CTA. The RS are confident in the reliability of CTA, as I would think that confidence should correspond with a confidence here. We don't know if, for example, NYT's bothers to verify info from CTA, to address an earlier point. We do know CTA is cited internationally, in the west and in Asia; CTA statements are cited as a counterpoint to PRC statements, and cited on their own merit, and cited about Tibetan exile affairs, and cited regarding the Dalai Lama. Therefore, the position of CTA not being usable in "controversial" areas, such as for the cultural genocide of Tibetans, is not supported by international press examples. They use CTA with attributions widely. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you messed up a ping for CaradhrasAiguo

What I explained regarding

WP:WEIGHT. The same general principles apply for statements from the United States Department of State, the Government of France, Amnesty International, European Union, or any other government, NGO, international organization, etc. — MarkH₂₁^talk

19:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Letting editors know I pinged @Usedtobecool and @Adoring nanny before any responses were posted. I later pinged @Newslinger since the editor's involved with RSN. All were pinged to build CON. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So there's CON that CTA can be cited as a governmental source @MarkH21. And that additional general use (and attributes) can be predicated by specific context in regards to WEIGHT. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see that there's CON that CTA can be cited as a governmental source (it's not clear to me what that even means). Every editor here has expressed that a statement by the CTA should generally/preferably only be used if it is mentioned in a secondary RS, and that any such inclusion should be in-text attributed to the CTA. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Good evening I was reading something about Military Frontier and stumbled upon wikipedia article and after that upon a Noel Malcolm book about Bosnia [64] also I've noticed that he is quoted a lot here but still has some controversy behind him with his other books [65]. There is probably a discussion about every historian in the world ,but still there is a lot of opposite opinions about him. So is he a RS and why is he so lets say controversial ? Thank you Theonewithreason (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Masala! a reliable source for south Asian entertainment news? There is a discussion about this at Talk:Ismail_Hussain_(singer)#Masala.VR _talk 20:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope, there's no disclosures on its authors and its articles are exclusively attributed to "Masala.com reporters." Its own terms and conditions forgo any liability towards the accuracy of its content and further states that they may make use third party sources without any promises on its accuracy. It qualifies as a

questionable source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk

09:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it is reliable due to the Terms and conditions that forgo any liability of there accuracy of content Also a possible copyright issue due to using third party sources 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I came across this site while reviewing a DYK hook for promotion to the main page. The hook was:

• ... that during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Veer Baburao Shedmake fought and won multiple battles against the British within a period of seven months before being captured and hanged?

When I looked at the nominated article, Baburao Shedmake, I found that the claim that Shedmake had "won" multiple battles against the British was sourced almost entirely to a website called "Live History India". The website's article on the topic includes a number of colorful claims, including that in his first battle, Shedmake "completely routed the British Army, while inflicting serious losses of men and equipment", that in the second battle, Shedmake's men "pelted stones at the troops, and didn't let up till the troops retreated with heavy losses!" and that in a third battle "the two sides battled it out bitterly, and again, Sedmake and his men emerged victorious".[66]

Now comparing this account to that from a couple of more clearly reliable sources in the article, an Indian government source states that "Two indecisive battles were fought at Saganpur and Bamanpeth in April 1858",[67] and an article on JSTOR from Modern Asian Studies states that the British sent a force of 1700 to put down the rebellion and that "being unaccustomed to operating in such a jungle and mountainous area, the force failed to make any dent on their opponents and were forced to retreat."[68] These accounts hardly accord with that from Live History India.

Taking a closer look at the Live History India website, it describes its "vision" as follows: Through our work and your support, Live History India aims to create a platform to help Indians and India lovers rediscover the many facets of this great country. Revive and bring forth the best works on India and champion all the efforts by individuals, groups, institutions and governments to restore our great legacy. A worthy goal perhaps, but then it does make it sound like an advocacy website.

On its "In the Press" page, there are just six mentions listed, most from around the time the site was getting established, some of which state that numerous unnamed historians were involved with the project. On its "Disclaimer" page however, it says Certain elements of the Site will contain material submitted by users. LHI accepts no responsibility for the content, accuracy, conformity to applicable laws of such material.

Courtesy ping to the creator of the wikipedia article on Shedmake, Shivashree. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gatoclass for checking the article and proofreading. As far as the DYK goes, I have removed the word "won" from the hook. Apart from that one source, the article has cited all reliable books and journals.

I hope it's good to go now for DYK. GD (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That website most certainly isn't reliable, and I would say this one isn't either; a website with a worthy goal, perhaps, but I see no evidence that it's contributors are subject-matter experts, nor that it has peer-review, or editorial review. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Cited in 12 articles and on 5 talk pages.
• Mentioned in passing at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#Newslaundry on OpIndia
• Listed on the International Fact-Checking Network webpage[69] 2 years ago; IFCN certification lasts for one year, and fact-checkers must be re-examined annually to retain their certifications.
• Listed at List of fact-checking websites.
• No Wikipedia page and no mention on the Boom disambiguation page.
• About,[70] Team,[71] Methodology,[72], Correction policy.[73]

Reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable: It's listed on the IFCN signatories page with a marker stating "Verified on 27-May-2020", so I assume it has been re-examined. There is also consensus that the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) can be used to determine the reliability of fact checking organisation so I'd go with reliable unless there's evidence to the contrary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per its
  notable yet, but it is reliable considering that no reliable source has criticized Boom's reliability (as far as I am aware). — Newslinger talk
  04:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Countere.com a reliable source? It doesn't look to be at first glance but first glances can be misleading and I didn't see it in the archives here. A citation was added at Jessica Krug, which is a BLP and a bit of a sensitive topic in general. Want input from the greater community as to whether we should consider this website RS or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have grave doubts about a site that has a story with the headline "I Responded to 30 DMs With My PayPal Link and Nobody Sent Me Any Money" as the second story on its homepage. The tagline on their Facebook page is "The magazine for the dystopia. Founded 2020" and they brag about causing chaos. Not reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I do as well, hence why were are here, but felt it needed to be listed here at RSN, regardless of conclusion. I wish another person or two would opine one way or another on the site. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See https://www.mangauk.com/blade-of-the-immortal-interview-with-hiroaki-samura/ The site has been blocked for about seven years but they keep featuring unique interviews for manga authors.Tintor2 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• The result of this discussion will determine whether the interview will be added to the
  blacklisted for spam in 2011–2012. — Newslinger talk
  15:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• I see no valid reason for it to be blocked. It's the official website of a large anime company in the UK, and (as pointed out) it contains sources that should be considered reliable. I support unblocking it. ···
  Join WP Japan
  ! 21:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Nihonjoe: as Tintor2 has demonstrated, the site contains information relevant the project, and is the official website of a large anime company. It should be unblocked. — Goszei (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed with everyone hereBlue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 18:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

LordRogalDorn has been trying to add quotes from the works of two 16th-century historians, Nicolaus Olahus and István Szamosközy in the article about the Origin of the Romanians. Two editors made several attempts to explain him that the two books could not be cited without a reference to a peer-reviewed secondary or tertiary source. He debates our opinion. Do you think we can quote 16th and 17th-century historians' views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis without establishing their relevance with a reference to a peer-reviewed work? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no two editors, only one editor made such attempts, that editor is the one I'm replying to right now -

WP:Primary states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". The quotes I added pass both of these concerns: they are not personal interpretations and don't need specialized knowledge to understand them. We already discussed how I made no personal interpretation of those sources, I merely listed them. And I will post the 2 quotes to let you see for yourself whether they require specialized knowledge to understand them: "the Roman colonists which inhabited the region, living through various wars and tribulations and dispersed by fate, they became the Romanian people." and "The sermons of all the Romanians are from the Romans, as they are Roman colonists: by our work, of great effort, we see their language is mutually-intellgeble with Latin… According to the tradition, Romanians are colonists of the Romans. This is proved by the fact that they have much in common with the Romans’ language, people whose coins are abundant in these places; undoubtedly, these are significant testimonies of the oldness and Roman rule here". Do you need specialized knowledge to understand the meaning of these quotes? LordRogalDorn (talk

) 08:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My first reamarks and my question are still valid. There are two editors opposing quotes from the two 16th-century historians' works and I still think 16th-century hostorians cannot be used without establishing their relevance with a reference to peer-reviewed works. Borsoka (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

My answer to you is still valid. The other editor merely mentioned that we tend not to use secondary sources older than 50 or 100 years. Making it only one editor against it, you. With all respect, what you think is not relevant when it contradicts Wikipedia's guideline. Saying that I can use primary sources without references to secondary sources when certain conditions are met: they are not personal interpretations and people don't need specialized knowledge to understand them.LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you think he reverts your edit because he agrees with you ([74])? Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know his stance, he only recently reverted my edit, it could very well be to stop the edit-war where you would falsely state "OR". What I do know is that

Wikipedia's policy? LordRogalDorn (talk

) 15:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to play your game. On the article's Talk page you can read all relevant quotes from our policies to be applied. Please read edit warring carefully, because edit warring may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What game? All the relevant quotes from our policies are applied. But you already know this because we

WP:BRD by filibustering because it may have serious consequences. LordRogalDorn (talk

) 18:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The involved editors in the dispute are:

The editors who want to keep Harun Yahya (who they disguise as "Bill Rehkopf") and several sources that do not mention the KCK for a phrase mentioning the KCK.

1: Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم

2: Thepharoah17

The editor who wants to remove Harun Yahya and irrelevant sources that do not mention the KCK.

3: Paradise Chronicle

The only admin mentioned in the dispute.

El C

They claim an Admin was involved in the wording of the phrase regarding the relation between the PKK and the PYD and therefore they revert me.

Most of the 9 sources don't even mention the KCK, so they force the inclusion of the sources in dispute by edit war and at are claiming Admin support. I don't remove the phrase. I just spilt and move the phrase according to their relevance and the relevance of the sources. According to the talk page Ibn Amr also agrees on the KCK part, but only on the talk page, his edits are an edit war. It is hard for me to believe that an Admin agreed to the use and concealment of Harun Yahya as a source (I am pretty sure they didn't, they weren't involved anymore, as I pointed out who Harun Yahya/Adnan Oktar is) and the use of other sources that don't even mention the KCK for a phrase that focuses on the KCK. They agreed on the wording, yes. But they can't back it up with multiple high quality sources as demanded from the Admin.

Here the diff for it.

Here is my first improvement of the page from the 1 September 2020 (onwards I only mention the month, the edits are all in 2020)

diff In which I removed some of the sources which didn't mention the KCK and split and moved the phrase in two. The KCK part went to the section Ideology and the other part about the foundation into History. I also clarified the sources like adding the author/publisher of an article to the source. The edit was reverted on the 1 September by Ibn Amr with the edit summary "the sentence you removed is very well sourced (10 or more) and took us (...) weeks to reach consensus on it. See Talk page, use it and seek consensus BEFORE removing this sentence"

diff

I then used the Talk page repeatedly on the 2 and 3 September,

diff

diff

diff

but there where no answers about Harun Yahya by anyone. ThePharoah17 and also Ibn Amr re-included Harun Yahya and the sources not mentioning the KCK. The Harun Yahya source is difficult to find as at first sight, he appears as Bill Rehkopf. In my opinion Harun Yahya is not a good source for a controversial phrase which I also stated at the talk page. Also sources that do not mention the KCK should not be used to source a phrase about the KCK.

Both, the KCK part of the phrase as well as the PYD-PKK connection would still be sourced with 3 sources. But as there is no founder of the PYD mentioned by name in any source but it is claimed that it was the PKK who founded it, as to me it is better to move this to the history part instead of the lead. A source with no name of a founder is no high quality source for a foundation. (Turkish sources would very probably deliver the names of the PKK-members amongst the PYD founders of 2003, but they don't and it would also not be a quality source) Nor is Harun Yahya. After my edit I did on the 16 September

here the diff,

the sources would have been clarified and not just a link as it is currently sometimes the case. The others prefer the current version with the unrelated sources.

For transparency: Before I came here with the dispute, the dispute was discussed at the ANI, but there I was told this is the wrong forum, and to go to another Noticeboard like RSN. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum for deciding who made correct or incorrect allegations on a talk page. It is an appropriate forum for discussing whether a source is reliable or not. But I'm not clear from the way this question is framed which sources are contentious here. Can you specify the sources we need to discuss, and what claims they are being used as sources for? Is it specifically this source (an opinion blog by Harun Yahya in The Hill, removed in this edit and restored in this edit but with the author inaccurately given in the citation as Bill Rehkopf)? My view is this is an inappropriate source for a factual claim as it is an opinion piece, and that "Harun Yahya" (Adnan Oktar) is not a reliable source for anything other than his own views as he is very much FRINGE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The sources I view as unreliable are the following:

The very Harun Yahya source you found (source No. 8 in the PYD article states it is from Bill Rehkopf),

this anonymous one of the

International Crisis Group (Heiko Wimmen is not the Author of the piece, he wrote another article on top of the link. The article sourcing the foundation of the PYD by PKK members is located below and is anonymous. It's the only source I read which mentions a founder of the PYD, and the article does not disclose the name. No Author nor a name of a founder. No high quality source to source something controversial in the lead.

another anonymous one of the

Carnegie Middle East Center it is a general article about the PYD. But nothing in depth. Also no high quality source. I also tried to show who the publisher is, but they reverted me.

another anonymous one of the

Council of Foreign Relations which doesn't mention the KCK but is used to source the KCK. The piece is a general timeline about Kurds. No high quality source worth for the inclusion of controversial content in the lead.

then a

Jstor/Atlantic Council piece which would be a better source but it doesn't mention the KCK as well (for which is used as a source) nor the foundation of the PYD in 2003 for which it is also used as a source. It focuses on the PYD from 2012 onwards (page 3-8)

a Reuters source which does also not mention the KCK for which it is also used to source, nor does it mention the foundation of the PYD in 2003 by the PKK, for which the piece is also used as a source for.

and a Hoover Institute piece of Fabrice Balanche who they also try to conceal. I tried several times to make his name seen, but everytime I was reverted. The source doesn't mention a founder of the PKK by name, nor mentions the KCK for which it also used as a source.

Most of the sources don't even mention what they are supposed to source.

This source from the Middle East Policy is an acceptable one for the KCK and has authors like Michael Gunter etc. It mentions the foundation of the PYD in 2003. But the PYD is not portrayed as a Syrian branch/offshoot of the PKK. According to this source it was only founded by Kurds with a sympathy towards the PKK, and it also has no name of a founder to show. This source can stay for the KCK. But it is also not a good source for a foundation of the PYD as a Syrian branch of the PKK.

I hope, it is now better to understand. It is a long edit, but there are also many sources in dispute.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There has been no further resistence to adapting the sources. No comment came here from the opposing party, maybe the discussion itself and the edit summary of the only contributor to the discussion was enough. Issue solved for now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Perennial sources says of Facebook: "Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight." The same is true of VK, so I would expect that it is not a reliable source (at least with respect to non-verified accounts).

To put some meat on this, the basis for this question is this edit to Alexandra Elbakyan; the particular citation is to what is likely Elbakyan's VK page at [75]. I removed it on the ground that VK is equivalent to Facebook, a documented nonRS; but it was reinstated by the editor with an edit summary that they believe the account to authentically belong to Elbakyan.

I note that VK does have a mechanism to verify that an account belongs to a the user it claims to be (akin to Twitter's (now-suspended) verified account process), which results in the account being marked with a 100%-verified logo (as shown on that VK page). The purported Elbakyan VK page at issue here does not have that logo; it is not a verified account, although realistically, I have no reason to believe it to be an imposter.

My own take is that a posting from a non-verified account fails

I don't see the reliability of VK having been discussed on this noticeboard, and since it's a very popular site in the Russian-speaking community, and the issue is likely to ramifications beyond this article, I thought it would be worth a discussion here rather than just on article's talk page.

It doesn't seem to have much traction as a source on Wikipedia; eyeballing a couple link searches ([76], [77]) there are only a few hundred links to it. Most are not in article space, and I suspect the majority of the ones that are are in articles are there as ELs rather than as references, for example as at Centr and Bolshoi Theatre. I suspect that's because of a general realization that it's not a RS. TJRC (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

As user-generated content, VK is generally unreliable for facts by WP content guidelines. As with Facebook, it may at times be useful for primary material. Jlevi (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The VK account is the same as the one linked at sci-hub.tw/alexandra so it's legit. Self published sources should only be used for

WP:ABOUTSELF information and should never be used for third party claims about living persons. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 21:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

+1--So9q (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

VK should be blacklisted as it is never useful for any purpose unlike Facebook that is sometimes useful for primary material. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How so? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Going to heavily disagree with the premise of this post. It's the Russian version of Facebook. It's not a source in and of itself. It is a platform that lets people post content. It doesn't need blacklisting and designating it as an unreliable source isn't useful because it is not a source. The sources are people who are making posts on it, and the questions we need to ask ourselves isn't whether or not blanket banning VK is appropriate; it's whether the people posting on VK are reliable. If the verified account for the Russian government posts about their official position on a diplomatic event, it's probably OK. If it's just some random person it's probably not. It's appropriate to use posts on VK as a source in the same contexts as Facebook.

ping

|Chess}} on reply) 00:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, just as

WP:ABOUTSELF as if it were published on the account owner's personal website. — Newslinger talk

05:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

For

secondary source would be preferred. At a minimum, the article should state that the "1 billion" figure is Sci-Hub's own claim. — Newslinger talk

05:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

+1 I agree and see that someone already fixed the sentence. I have asked the author of Sci-hub via Telegram to provide full statistics on the website to sidestep the problems and get raw data instead.--So9q (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask where do we stand on TV.com as a source? Govvy (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the hits I checked at [78], we don't think highly of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I won't use the source. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

talk

) 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone verify if filmmusicreporter.com can be used as a reliable source? It looks like back in 2011, there was a short discussion about it on the WP:FILM talk page, and it looked like the two editors who commented came to the conclusion that it was an

Looks dubious even for an SPS. Here's the about page. Comments don't look real either. I'm wondering what this site is for. - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Should lostarmour.info be blacklisted? 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The site is a Russian image board that claims to count the number destroyed military equipment in modern conflicts (Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan etc.) by using Twitter images of the purportedly destroyed military equipment (Twitter is a non RS on Wikipedia). I think this source, currently being widely used in modern combat articles should immediately be blacklisted/deprecated due its unreliability. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily blacklisted, but just ignored, that is not used. Simple non-RS issue. Zezen (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently used in 20 pages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Is The

) 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly it's an opinion source, but it's definitely an indicator for notability, and I've not known it to make stuff up, fwiw - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Quite good from my perspective, with a long and solid track record. The NYT had a small section on its 50th birthday in 1963, saying: "The New Statesman, outspoken weekly reflecting the views of Britain's intellectual left, celebrated its 50th birthday today. In messages, President Kennedy praised its 'distinction of style' and Prime Minister Macmillan its 'presentation'" It was quite solid 50 years ago, and it remains good today. The NYT often references the source for facts, to reference their interviews, and to demonstrate notability of a subject in a different paper: [79][80][81][82]. Reuters treats it similarly: [83]. On the other hand, Fox criticized the paper in 2004 for its coverage of an alleged rape, saying that TNS was too credulous of the claims made by the alleged victim. Hmmmm.... though more recent investigations seem to imply that Fox may not have been on the right side of history on this one. Jlevi (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: Oh, right, with consideration for the boilerplate 'news vs opinion' caveat, of course. Jlevi (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review UBO: [84][85][86]

The Atlantic UBO: [87][88] Jlevi (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• It is reliable but as with any political magazine, editors need to distinguish between news and opinion pieces. TFD (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable but opinion needs to be attributed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Highly reliable although a lot of the content is opinon and needs to be treated as such. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable with the caveat that it is 75% opinion and reflects a centrist/centre-left perspective. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - apology to Roger Scruton No-one has yet mentioned that the New Statesman had to apologise to Roger Scruton for grossly misrepresenting his views. [89] [90]To me, this is the equivalent of ‘making stuff up’, and seriously affects its credibility. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems like this has to do with social media, rather than the publication itself. The apology notes that "Sir Roger is quoted accurately in the article... After its publication online, links to the article were tweeted out together with partial quotations from the interview...". Though this seems like a gross social media strategy, I don't think we typically weigh social media posts in evaluation of sources. If other examples of this sort of thing exist, maybe there would be more to say. Jlevi (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, Mr Scruton was quoted out of context to make it appear that he was racist against the Chinese, and that he was criticising George Soros without also criticising anti-Semitic hostility to Mr Soros. It was because he was misrepresented as a racist that he was sacked by the government, as stated in the BBC source, and then reinstated when it was realised that he had been traduced. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You're correct. I read the article [91] and also the full transcript [92]. The article was unrepresentative of Roger Scruton's position. For some editors such misrepresentation in a right-leaning publication would lead to deprecation. The article was written in 2019. The New Statesman is a progressive left-leaning publication and Roger Scruton is a conservative.--Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I read both the article and transcript, and it reads like a reasonably accurate article to me, tbh. In any case, one debatable article would not be enough to render it a deprecated source, especially when the article has been pored over by the magazine in order to establish reliability.-Boynamedsue (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand what ‘the article has been pored over by the magazine in order to establish reliability’ means. Obviously, if they had to apologise for it, they didn’t pore over it enough. And the author of the article, George Eaton, is still working at the NS. When Boris Johnson invented a quote, the Times sacked him.This enhanced the credibility of the Times. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable I think the publication is well written and generally reliable. I read it sometimes. However, since it's a left-leaning publication there needs to be caution when it writes about conservative-related topics. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be regarded as reliable. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Geoconservation Research

Is Geoconservation Research (http://gcr.khuisf.ac.ir/) a reliable journal? It is run by the

George Poinar and Sieghard Ellenberger, about Burmese amber. There's a lot of controversy about Burmese amber, which is mined in a conflict zone in northern Kachin State in Myanmar, and whether or not profits from its sale go towards funding conflict, and many of the claims made in the paper are not verifiable from external sources. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 21:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

According to this article [93] CNN has emailed Poinar and confirmed that this study is legitimately from him, so I don't think there should be any doubt about whether it might be a fraudulent open-access journal not really from the university. That being said, even if GCR (abbreviating) is a reliable journal in the field of paleontology it seems like this article in particular is a primary source that is composed of Poinar and Ellenberger's anecdotal experiences in Myanmar/Burma. I don't think this article should be used to definitively say that "the profits from Burmese amber have not been used to support ethnic cleansing".

ping

|Chess}} on reply) 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Poinar wrote it, my point was that I'm not sure that the journal has adequate peer review for material like this. Poinar and Ellenberger's main contention is that the production of amber crashed after the 2017 takeover of the mines by the Tatmadaw, and the vast majority of the amber that was mined was prior to 2017 when the mines were controlled by the Kachin Independence Army. This is coroborated by a 2019 article in Science:

Two former mine owners, speaking through an interpreter in phone interviews, say taxes have been even steeper since government troops took control of the area. Both shut their mines when they became unprofitable after the government takeover, and almost all deep mines are now out of business, dealers here corroborate. Only shallow mines and perhaps a few secret operations are still running.

This is relevant because the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has proposed a moratorium on publishing for specimens collected after 2017, implying that funding the Tatmadaw is the problem, not the KIA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting claim but it's not enough to definitively that buying Burmese amber does not fund the Burmese government. Clearly there's disagreement in the field over this (otherwise why boycott?) and both viewpoints should be reflected in the article. On the topic of whether GCR itself is a reliable source I wouldn't know enough about the field of paleontology to say. Maybe cross-posting to WikiProject paleontology would be helpful here.

ping

|Chess}} on reply) 21:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

National Geographic and Adam Weishaupt (the Illuminati guy)

Is the National Geographic so reliable that Wikipedia needs to accept elements of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory based on an NG article that iself lacks any reliable sourcing? See the history of Adam Weishaupt and the talkpage section titled "Was Weishaupt Jewish?" for background. --Hegvald (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It should mention this claim, qualifying it by citing this RS by name and maybe the opposing ones, if any, for DUE. Why not?

BTW, I have removed the hat tag there, for easier finding the discussion that you highlighted here: I have not and will not otherwise touch this article.

Zezen (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

What do mean by "this RS"? --Hegvald (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hegvald, there is an extensive critique of Hernández' article for the National Geographic here. Vexations (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for "why not," see Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, which is ultimately the source of claims that Weishaupt was Jewish. Notice that there's a lack of Jewish or Masonic sources saying "ok, he had Jewish ancestors BUUUT." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In 2015 Rupert Murdoch bought 73% of The National Geographic Society's assets, including the magazine, books, maps, and all other Media assets. Then 1n March 2019 The Walt Disney Corporation acquired that 73%,

The magazine is now published by "National Geographic Partners" (AKA Disney) instead of of The National Geographic Society, which retains 27% ownership but has no control over content.[94]

Since then the magazine has become an unreliable source.[95][96][97] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the one aforementioned article those examples point more to the unreliabilty of their book department which has different editors to those at the magazine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

When the new owners of a respected and reliable publication show that they are willing to publish garbage using the formerly good name, someone always says "but we only caught division X publishing bullshit. We need to assume that division Y is reliable until we catch them doing it". This is usually combines with a "division Y has different editors" claim as if they didn't report to the same bosses and as if those bosses never move editors between divisions. No, we should not play Whac-A-Mole, treating all the subdivisions of an organization as if they are independent. Once the top management has shown that they are fine with the book division publishing craptacular material about space aliens and magic foods that cure cancer, the magazine division needs to be considered unreliable until proven otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, that argument is like saying The Times should be deprecated because it is part of the same corporation that owns The Sun. Each publication has seperate editors and needs to be considered on its own merits such as The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday in the RFC following. We can't just assume a source is unreliable due to its ownership, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's like saying that [ https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/bizarre/ ] and [ https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/fabulous-celebrity/ ] should not be treated as separate entities. I am not saying the National Geographic and ABC News should be treated the same just because Disney owns both. I am saying that National Geographic Magazine and National Geographic Books should be treated the same.

You misstated the result concerning The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. The overwhelming consensus was "Option 4 The content at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/index.html seems to be no different and inseparable from the rest of the outlet". "Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated"

"Hey! You only showed that page 3 of the Frostbite Falls Picayune Intelligence is unreliable! Page 5 was written and edited by a different person!! Also, you only proved that Lake Tahoe is a fresh water lake at the north shore. It might be filled with salt water at the south shore and crude oil in the middle..." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy, the RFC on whether the Daily Mail deprecation applies to the Mail on Sunday is still open (and to my eye is far from having consensus). That said, I would agree that NatGeo has fallen dramatically in reliability in recent years. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

If we seperate the reliability of staff editors and contributor editors at the same publication such as Forbes, Huffington Post and Entrepreneur then there is a case that different divisions run by different editors should be considered separately, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)While NatGeo as an institution is generally not unreliable, specialist sources would outweigh them. Christopher L. Hodapp is more of an authority on these matters and he has endorsed two similarly weighty (though not notable) authors' rebuttals of that article. One of those authors (Josef Wages) was the editor for the English translation of the Illuminati rituals, the other (Terry Melanson) is cited throughout our articles on Illuminati. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The National Geographic Society was considered reliable, but they no longer control the content of the books, magazine, maps, or videos. Now everything is controlled by Disney. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Of the discussions linked in RSPS for National Geographic, one is pre-2015 (see what Guy Macon wrote) and the other seems ambiguous, leaning towards "against". I don't think the current green status has a solid basis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Related: National Geographic Society sets biggest layoff in its history Newslinger, is this enough to change the perennial sources entry, or should I post an RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • ​I think an RfC would be best. A mass layoff is definitely enough to justify an RfC, although it's common for editors to hold off on reclassifying a source until enough time has passed for its content quality to noticeably change. The January 2019 discussion on BuzzFeed News immediately after its layoffs didn't find consensus to reclassify it right away. The layoffs from National Geographic happened just under five years ago, and this discussion does mention more than just the layoffs, so an RfC might produce a different result here. — Newslinger talk 13:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have seen the online article that Vexations (talk · contribs) mentions above, and it is telling that the NG has already corrected a claim about Mayer Amschel Rothschild that had originally been in the Hernandez article (see box at the bottom of her article). In either case it would appear that the best secondary sources on Weishaupt's origin are most likely to be the two articles by Brökel and Hausfelder that deal specifically with Weishaupt's family and are published in German regional historical periodicals, neither of which, alas, is available to me. Somebody with access to a good German university library could probably find them. (Gerhard Brökel "Adam Weishaupt: der Gründer des Geheimbundes der Illuminaten und seine Vorfahren in Brilon", Jahrbuch Hochsauerlandkreis 2004. Edmund Hausfelder, "Die Familie des Adam Weishaupt und seine Schwiegereltern Sausenhofer", in Sammelblatt des Historischen Vereins Ingolstadt 120 (2011), p. 215-245. Both are mentioned by JevaSinghAnand (talk · contribs) in a comment from 2015. (Jeva Singh-Anand also appears to have been an authority on the illuminati and a collaborator of Josef Wages, mentioned above by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs).) --Hegvald (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Singh-Anand translated the Illuminati rituals and other works by Weishaupt into English. Wages and Singh-Anand rather seem to have a positive view of Weishaupt as a philosopher so they wouldn't exactly have any reason to try to hide any Jewish ancestry if Weishaupt had any. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: HuffPost

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this RfC, editors conclude that the Huffington Post's reliability varies. The community considers that the site demonstrates open bias concerning US politics. A few editors consider the site's reliability for politics outside the US, and show examples of bias concerning British politics as well, but there is insufficient participation on this point for me to call it a consensus. In non-political fields, the Huffington Post staff writers are subject to editorial oversight and the community finds them generally fairly reliable for factual reporting, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and may give less prominence, or omit to cover, things that deny it. The Huffington Post uses clickbaity headlines to attract attention, and the body text of any article should be considered more reliable than the headlines.

The community views HuffPost's contributor blogs as very variable in quality with near-zero editorial oversight, and these should be treated with great caution.

Finally, the community notes that the Huffington Post's reliability has increased since 2012. Articles from before about 2012 are less reliable than the modern ones and should be treated with more caution.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

---

What is the

reliability of the HuffPost

?

• Option 1: Generally
  reliable
  for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally
  unreliable
  for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be
  deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily MailHemiauchenia (talk
  ) 21:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Responses (HuffPost)

• Option 1: perfectly reliable. Opinion pieces are opinion pieces, same with any other news source. "18 Reasons Why X Is Y"- and "As An X, Here Is My Opinion On Y"-style articles may be of little use to us but are harmless. Relative to the United States, it has a liberal bias; it does not contain misinformation or factual inaccuracies, just a selective bias in topics a little bit stronger than our most reliable news sources. It's particularly useful for interviews, entertainment (e.g. television reviews) and internet culture but not always useful for showing notability or due weight. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2½. More or less OK for general reporting but distinctly biased, so less reliable for politics (like Faux News) and it gives a platform to people like homeopathy shill Dana Ullman. The default should be not to use HuffPo. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:RSP. — Bilorv (talk
    ) 15:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • yeah, the blogs are often random trash much as they are on Forbes - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Similar to Fox. There will always be a better source for
  WP:DUE article content. SPECIFICO talk
  23:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fox is ranked Option 1 for general topics and Option 2 for politics and science. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 as reliable as legacy media. TFD (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as reliable. Wouldn't call it "legacy media" as TFD does, but it was one of the first new sources in "new media" in the midst of Internet that established itself based on standard journalism models, and has proven themselves reliable (with the usual cavaets with its contributor model, already called out), and thus no reason to question it without any evidence to challenge that position. --Masem (t) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for staff written content although opinion pieces should be attributed as usual. No evidence presented of unreliabilty, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 I have generally found it to be reliable. Draws a clear line between staff-written content and advertising. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. HuffPost is certainly
  WP:SPS at RSP. Armadillopteryx
  00:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option2: I would consider it of questionable (or, more exactly, erratic) reliability even now, and one cannot prove it generally reliable, by showing it has been reliable sometimes. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per JzG. Not a great source, but not awful. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for news content - it's a perfectly normal
  WP:NEWSBLOGs - David Gerard (talk
  ) 12:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • note: the blog posts are "Contributor", "Contributor Network" or explicitly marked "Blogs" - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, totally reliable, issues corrections, has editorial oversight. Abductive (reasoning) 13:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, especially for c. 2012 to present. Its coverage in its early period of existence needs to be looked at more critically, (Option 2). I also think they have a partisan bias, so extraordinary claims may need attribution. I say all this as someone with a strong left bias myself. But biased is not the same as unreliable. Fox was not considered unreliable (for politics and science) because it was biased and neither is NYPost being discussed for that reason, while it is a contributing factor. I have not seen any evidence presented of fabricated coverage. --- 
  Coffeeandcrumbs
  ) 16:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 given the complete lack of evidence given to the contrary. I suggest this be speedy closed soon unless some rationale is given.
  -- Calidum
  18:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Looking at the arguments above I was leaning towards 3 but I think 2 is a happy medium. Extra consideration should be given using them as the sole source for something politically controversial. PackMecEng (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 Bias? Meh, everyone is bias. Having said that they run super sensational headlines all the time, like a leftwing Fox News (as pointed out by other editors)...they've gotten the facts really, really wrong many times. One example I can think of his when the claimed 80,000 people died in the UK after being kicked off welfare. In reality 2,600 had died and no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Department for Work and Pensions actions had actually caused any of the deaths. I remember reading the article as someone who is very sympathetic to those being forced off welfare and thinking "That's just insane, as if that really happened" the numbers were just completely crazy and didn't add up at all. They corrected the numbers, but the article is still crazy and implies that the department for Work and Pensions killed more than 2,600 people. They run a lot of sensational crap like this. I don't consider it a serious news outlet, they get stories from dubious sources like blogs and forums, it's a sensationalist left-wing tabloid. Definitely not a 1 editors shouldn't be letting through such wild and obviously false claims, but they do correct their mistakes so not a 4 but they come very close to being completely unreliable for statements of fact - they may have corrected the wild claim that British welfare agencies killed 80,000 people, but the article still claims that a British government department killed nearly 3000 of it's vulnerable citizens with no real evidence to back that claim other than a very flimsy correlation. [98]
  talk
  ) 22:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There's good reason to believe that the change to

Ian Duncan Smith probably has killed many people indirectly. See [99] [100] [101] Hemiauchenia (talk

) 22:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to Hemiauchenia's excellent sourcing to back up their argument, I'll give a topical analogy: COVID-19 doesn't just cause deaths by COVID-19, but

excess deaths too, and when considering the effect it has had it would be wrong to omit calculation of those deaths. However, as to the specific article in question, HuffPost issued a correction almost immediately: An earlier version of this story incorrectly claimed [...] This was incorrect and was changed within 15 minutes of the story being published. Issuing corrections with such speed is an indicator of reliability, not a strike against it. All publications make similarly mistaken claims from time to time, but it is only the reliable ones which correct them speedily and effectively. — Bilorv (talk

) 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• The article is essentially correct after that amendment, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

True, I just think they are quick to publish sensational stories and the fact that such a wild figure made it past the editorial staff is evidence, the story still isn't straight reporting it has a sensational tone and looking at the guardian story, the numbers still seem off...and there's a lot of correlation/causation being presented rather than straight reporting. They are too quick to go for the sensational story or run a certain narrative, like Fox and other trashy outlets. I don't reckon they should be deprecated but we can find better, less sensational sources with tighter editorial controls.

talk

) 01:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 — tabloidy and sensationalist clickbait; willingness to put homeopathy nonsense on the same site — even if it's "just a blog" — exposes a willingness to promote misinformation for clicks; and it's only been around since 2005, which is substantially less of a track record than reputable sources like AFP, Reuters, AP, etc. Best avoided in favor of better sources. —{{u|
  Talk｜Contributions
  02:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for political news (American and international), Option 1.25 for non-political non-controversial news. I would have given a 1.5 for political news, but the Indian HuffPost website has even more biased wording and selective reporting than every Indian left-wing paper and news site besides Bloomberg Quint, which is actually owned by an American company. 45.251.33.169 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1½ for news content — not a blemish-free record, but not one indicative of an irredeemably flawed process, either. Potentially useful as a supplement to legacy media, e.g., if they quote someone at fuller length than the WaPo did. "Contributor" content is often random trash much as they are on Forbes, as
  talk
  ) 04:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bilorv. ~ HAL333 07:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. Has become increasingly well-established with evidence of editorial control. The inaccurate story flagged up was fixed within 15 minutes and a correction is still appended to the article. Care should be taken over clickbait-y headlines, and the entry should clarify that blogs/contributors, previously much of the site's content, should be treated separately (as
  WP:SPS). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs
   » 09:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Has moved over the past decade from trashy listicle factory and clickbait mill to reputable journalistic institution. (Like Fox in a mirror.) Obviously usual caveats on bias, blogs, opinion pieces, etc. The idea that IDS and his crew of incompetants managed to leave 3,000+ to the wolves with their purely ideological "reforms" (cuts) to welfare is not extraordinary and should surprise no-one. GPinkerton (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per above comments. Only reason why it should be treated differently than "legacy media" would be because there is a lot of blogging content on the website from previous incarnations, which had perhaps less quality control than opinion sections of other reliable sources, so we might need to more prominently emphasise our usual caveats about opinion content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per their 2016 practice of attaching a note to every article about Donald Trump saying Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. In particular, the "regularly incites political violence" part is just plain false. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

e.g. ^[1][2][3][4] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are talking about the man who recently encouraged extrajudicial mass murder with the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts"? He has encouraged and incited racist state brutality since before HuffPost started commenting on it. I notice you find it Generally unreliable for factual reporting but unfortunately your one stated "factual" objection is just your opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources
^ "FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?". Snopes. ^ Tiefenthäler, Ainara. "Video: Trump's History of Encouraging Violence". The New York Times. ^ "Federal Judge Rules President Trump Plausibly Incited Violence at Rally as Candidate". Time. ^ Cassidy, John. "Donald Trump's Incitements to Violence Have Crossed an Alarming Threshold". The New Yorker.

• 1, it's fine, just the usual case of dividing opinion from news. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - unreliable per the above, and following are a few more samples of unreliability: EPA - "Huffington Post Report Filled with Biased and Misleading Claims", WaPo, Poynter, and libel suits. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Trump administration's EPA press release is a response to an article about itself which attempts to "fact check" insinuations that are not only not in the article but don't seem to be implied or even relevant. It doesn't offer any evidence of poor journalism or unreliability. The WaPo story involves a quote from someone who had falsely claimed to be an eyewitness to a shooting, which was corrected and withdrawn, though it is a sign of suboptimal standards (at least back in 2014). The Poynter article is about an amusing typo. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Basically that any such categorization is an over generalization and we should stop this type of thing. Actual reliability means objective, unbiased reporting, not just avoiding clearly false statements. By those standards their extreme bias means that in many contexts their reliability is very very low. In other contexts their reliability is fine. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1.5 for staff-writer content -
  WP:RSOPINION applies as usual. For contentious content, I would prefer to use higher-quality sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, etc.), but the track record on news reporting is decent and they do make a delineation between commentary, advertising, and news. Neutrality^talk
  18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 How are they any different from Fox News? They are equally as political (or "polarizing" as some would put it) Fortliberty (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 per JzG, Bacondrum, and other points raised above. They don't have a reputation for vigorous fact checking or editorial oversight; rather, they have a reputation for sensationalism (e.g. click bait headlines) and bias, though not outright fabrication AFAICT, and they do correct errors, hence not option 4. This is an encyclopedia, and we can do better than citing to a source that has basically never outgrown its origins as a group blog and news aggregator. For anything we could cite HuffPost for, there is a better source available. Lev!vich 14:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1; not seeing any indication that they're generally unreliable. The examples cited above fall into two categories - first, stuff where they issued corrections (often fairly minor details, which covers all the
  WP:MANDY - obviously people are going to object to unflattering reporting about them, but if it is untrue there should be secondary coverage saying so. Much more importantly, none of these sources suggest any long-term or systematic problem with the Huffington Post's reporting. Some editors here have taken issue with its tone, or disagreed with stuff it says, but no actual coverage about that seems forthcoming, and in any case we don't classify sources as reliable or unreliable based on their tone unless there is a reason to think that this influences the accuracy of their reporting... which, again, nobody has actually produced any evidence for. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 21:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, every source is biased, I'm not seeing any evidence they have a reputation for factual inaccuracy or that they have categorically published false information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 for general reporting and Option 3 for their contributors. Read this article where a contributor appears to promote homeopathy [102]. Things may have changed in recent years, but older articles (regular articles and blogs) need to be used with caution. I'm not so sure about their recent general reporting though.
  talk
  ) 20:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think everyone agrees their contributor content is trash. I also suspect the pre-2012 content is in the same boat. --- 

  Coffeeandcrumbs

  ) 23:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Tendency towards tabloidy clickbait and a sketchy record on fact checking.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - depends on context and excluding any user-generated blog or video parts. Seems obviously “Generally reliable” in having editors and publishing norms in the usual parts, for the context of popular press. And certainly a noted site. A bit sensationalized, but meh. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - For articles which are not of a political nature, Huffpost is as reliable as any other legacy media source. On subjects of political significance, there can be some spin in the presentation of facts—the facts themselves are usually accurate, but there are exceptions—so it's important to view what they say on those matters with a critical eye. When possible, corroborating with a second reliable source can be good practice. -- ExParte ^talk 06:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Far too many poorly sourced and sensationalised articles littered with inaccuracies or glaring omissions. There are good articles but not nearly enough consistency to be accepted as a source without very close scrutiny. They don't seem to have investigative staff so it would be rare for them to have coverage which is not available elsewhere in a much better and more balanced prose. Cambial Yellowing❧ 06:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  @

  talk

  ) 06:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 - HuffPost is basically the ying to Fox News's yang in that it seems to have a major left-lean bias per what has been said above. It should not be considered a factual source. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for staff written contwnt, largely as per David Gerard . No significant evidence provided for more than normal errors and soem political spin. Blogs are a different case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1 & 2 I have not yet read much of HuffPost, but I've seen some rather good articles and the site has won a Pulitzer Prize. But of course some articles (specially the ones of before 2018), should be able to be discussed individually if they are a reliable source.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - HuffPost is certainly a reliable source of information. While they may have a significant bias, I think it's completely fair to cite a HuffPost News article as a source. Opinion articles are a different story, however. TexanElite (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Bilorv. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, totally reliable, issues corrections, has editorial oversight, per other Option 1 votes. Andrew Englehart (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 for staff reportage, similar to BuzzFeed News or Fox News. Avoid reproducing loaded language from the source, and defer to more established publications for controversial statements. Option 3 for contributors. feminist (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per many above. Fine for factual reporting, obviously does not extend to the opinion sections. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (HuffPost)

• @Hemiauchenia: Are you specifically referring to articles written by HuffPost staff (and not HuffPost contributors)? — Newslinger talk 23:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Yes, HuffPost contributors was sunsetted in 2018. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this isn't true for the UK edition, the statement in the article by the UK EiC that "The US platform allows bloggers to self-publish, creating an unregulated, unedited and unrefined stream of noise into the noisy space that is the internet. In the UK that is entirely different - we do monitor, edit and curate the blogs before they launch.", is telling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please present evidence for the (un)reliability of the source, otherwise these discussions become rather impressionistic/opinion-based. (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Some editors may be confusing political with factual reliability. While the Huffington Post has been unreliable in its support for the Democratic Party, it's facts have been reliable. For example, they published articles about Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations against the Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden weeks before legacy media. But that's an objection about what stories they chose to report, rather than their accuracy. There's no need anyway to ban every publication that doesn't support Joe Biden 100%. For broadly covered stories, weight prevents us from including stories that legacy media ignores. TFD (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• The confusion is that there are and were blogs (or "contributor" articles, or similar names), of varying degrees of editorial review. The US ones included the likes of Dana Ullman. The UK ones claimed greater editorial oversight, but they were unpaid for-exposure blogs on a Forbes-like model (I know people HuffPost tried to talk into giving them copy for free). These aren't NEWSORG content - and I wouldn't even call them NEWSBLOG content. They're just blog posts, and only RS insofar as they're expert opinion - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• They publish falsehoods and wild exaggeration: In this 2015 story they imply that the DWP killed 3000 vulnerable welfare recipients with no evidence to back that claim, initially the article claimed it was 80,000 dead. No reliable source with proper editorial over-site would run that story: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/27/benefits-death-claimants-welfare-ids_n_8047424.html?guccounter=1 2009 they promote magic healing water as evidence based homeopathy? That's an oxymoron, it's pseudoscience and while this might be a blog, what reputable source would dabble in this kind of crap: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-wisdom-of-symptoms-re_b_299070 And that's just a small sample of crap they publish.
  talk
  ) 23:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Bacondrum, The first story looks similar to a Guardian story[103] As for the second one, it's marked "contributor". This discussion is only on staff content. (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying the story doesn't have any merit, the DWP was and is cruel and unreasonable, no doubt there are massive issues. The Guardian had to correct their story too, but the tone is much more akin to straight reporting and they never claimed 80,000 had died - how did such an outlandish and wildly wrong number make it through the editorial process?. Overall the Huff is sensational, while it might lean my way politically, it's a trashy sensationalist outlet. I don't think it should be depreciated, but I find claims that it's a totally solid reliable news source a bit hard to swallow. The Guardian is solid overall, the Huff does a lot of...huffing.

talk

) 01:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

One story for which they issued a correction and one by a contributor 11 years ago don't really amount to a lot. Compare to e.g. the pile of evidence in the New York Post RfC. Not saying you're wrong, but for being the first real evidence presented here... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There's heaps more issues, those were just two I could think of off the top of my head, I often find the Huffs output pretty cringe worthy so I only really read it when it makes the news for the wrong reasons. I remember them being in the news a number of times for publishing crazy psuedoscience stuff. Salon ran this in 2009: https://www.salon.com/2009/07/30/huffington_post/ pretty mental stuff, the Huff was recommending "deep-cleansing enemas" to treat swine flu??? Fair bit of dubious reportage by the Huff documented in other outlets used in our article if you check the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost#Criticism_and_controversy

talk

) 07:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That story was long ago and the nature of the media organization and their content has changed immensely since then. They started as clickbait, now are a mainstream news medium. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Any evidence they have recently published outright lies as news, not opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

HuffPost’s use of lies to help “sell” the Iran deal -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from that being the blogger disagreeing with political interpretations, rather than factual claims - are you seriously positing https://savethewest.com/ as a source for any claim whatsoever? - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"HuffPo suffers the (unfortunately common) media delusion that science works like politics. Due to this, it is known for shamelessly pushing pseudoscience and woo, and has been caught deliberately lying about doing so" Rational Wiki -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (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.

Douban

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

 – Bsherr (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed

WP:USERGENERATED

, and so their scores should only be used in exceptional cases, when other publications have decided they might actually be notable.

Has Douban been discussed before? (I considered asking Project Film but they wouldn't necessarily know anything about the reliability of Chinese website, even if they are film website so this seemed like a good place to ask.) It would seem to be an unreliable source. Am I wrong? -- 109.77.196.143 (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. We cannot cite Douban because it consists solely of user-generated content. It can be included in an external links section similar to how we use IMDB, but that's all. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

We have around 1,197 citations to Douban per douban.com  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• We can cite third-party mentions of Douban film ratings, instead of citing Douban itself. feminist (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It will be very helpful to be able to point to this discussion as needed. -- 109.76.210.200 (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

RedState

There is recent reporting on RedState having pseudonymous writers who publish misinformation and do not disclose their conflicts of interest.[104] This has implications for the reliability of RedState.

talk

) 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Our article on them does say that the Honorable Donald Trump has criticised them, so it is definitely something worth looking into. In January 2014 their ownership changed, so that could be when they went downhill, if they were ever reliable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: - it may interest you that a wave of 2018 RedState firings reportedly focused on its anti-Trump writers. starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe that is when its reliability went downhill, assuming it was ever reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The article concerns a single pseudonymous writer,“streiff”. His real identity was outed as that of Bill Crews. He joined RedState in 2004 and is one of its "most widely read contributors." Crews has worked as a press officer at NIAID since 2007. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As an "opinion website" that in my view doesn't distinguish between opinion and other content, RedState shouldn't be used to source facts. starship.paint (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Setlist.fm

Is this a reliable source? Particularly re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Early_Years_1965%E2%80%931972&oldid=980575645#cite_ref-Montreux70_6-0 @Dyolf87:. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be

WP:UGC, as per their about and FAQ pages. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 13:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable as it is already listed as an unreliable source by WikiProject Music because it is usergenerated, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dyolf87: Please see other users here and my self-revert being reverted per this discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the South Carolina State Firefighters' Association a reliable source?

I'm in the process of creating a new article, and I wanted to know if this webpage is reliable [105]. It appears to be a blog that comes from a seemingly trustworthy source. I understand that blogs usually aren't reliable, but this seems to have undergone a fact-checking process. However, I am unsure if the fact-checking process was good enough because the blog does not cite any sources. I am only asking because this website does not appear to have ever been cited on the English Wikipedia. All help will be appreciated. Thanks.

talk

) 22:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, while you have presented a tertiary source about the fire of 1923. TFD (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I knew that this source would be somewhat questionable, but I couldn't quite figure out why. I only included this source because it was the only detailed source I could find that seemed reliable enough for my article. The rest of my references are secondary sources that I am confident are reliable. I have since read

talk

) 15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Just looking around I suggest you may need to dig into some books and newspaper sources. (Note what you can access via [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ the Wikipedia Library Card for free with some registration). Newspapers.com would be one site I would try that you should be able to get free access to. While these would be primary sources for the stories around 1923, that will help flesh out sourcing. --Masem (t) 17:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not a bad idea. I just applied. I hope this can help me get the facts sorted out. I'm planning on moving the article to the mainspace right now though, because I'm convinced that it satisfies

talk

) 18:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation about Minnie Ashley (Beatrice Ashley Chandler)

I have not seen one online article that reveals the true birthdate of actress Minnie Ashley. As a direct descendant that shares the same pedigree (I am the great grandson of Minnie Ashley’s brother) I would like to know how any of the Wikipedia articles about Minnie Ashley can be corrected. My knowledge is first hand and I can prove through various documents that were retrieved from Vital Statistics, Published city street directories and family photos and information in letters written by other members of my family.

Please read

wp:v. Your own knowledge is not enough.Slatersteven (talk

) 17:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB in external links

See discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Adding IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic to external links (wherever possible). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Atlas Obscura

Atlas Obscura is a website dedicated to documenting interesting and obscure places. We currently have 1,500 citations to Atlas Obscura per atlasobscura.com  . My main issue with their website is that while it does have a magazine section with articles written by professional writers, these only make up less than half (668) of the citations to the website per atlasobscura.com/articles  , the rest are place entires, which are entirely user generated content, which we have 834 citations to per atlasobscura.com/places  . Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• • Not sure that is correct, have just had a look at some of the listed contributors to place articles and they are professionals holding positions now or formally at the publication or are journalists, experienced writers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)