Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 62

WorldNetDaily does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WorldNetDaily currently enjoys credentialed representation to the White House as a news organization. Is the White House Press Office in the business of entertaining representatives of media organizations deemed by them or by the journalistic community to be an "unreliable source" in fact reporting? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? I'm not sure what the requirements of the "White House Press Office" are, but permission to sit in one of the 49 seats at the press briefings is administered by the

Les Kinsolving, the White House Press Correspondent for Talk Radio, and more recently, also WND, has been a WH Correspondent since long before WND existed (See his Bio). Kinsolving pays his dues just like the correspondents from Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight.Com, Politico and over one hundred other outlets. Good credentials aren't really required even for the opportunity to be present during the briefings - in fact, one-time day passes are frequently issued, and total imposters using pseudonyms have been known to attend. It is interesting to note that the WHCA, when assigning the limited, prestigious seating to more established correspondents, refers to Kinsolving by his Talk Radio association, instead of his WND association (You may find this an interesting read, too), although WND is listed in the membership rolls. The short answer to your question is: No, being a member of the Press Corps is not in any way an indication of a publisher's reliability - though it certainly doesn't hurt one's image. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Say who? But first, welcome back to the discussion. Before commenting on several elements of your observations, I did, indeed, find your cited article to be an interesting read but, given your assertions above, the following from that same article seems, on its face, to be rather contradictory...

It's worth pointing out that the WHCA doesn't decide who can be in the briefing room. Losing a seat is not the same as losing access.

Do you have any thoughts or further clarification to offer on 538.com's observation? If the WHCA doesn't decide "who can be in the briefing room", then who does? According to the WHCA website, an "...applicant must have permanent White House press credentials". Are those not issued by the White House Press Office? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction at all. The White House Press Office decides who gets into the room (day passes & hard passes), and the WHCA further decides who gets a seat in that room (translation: gets called upon to ask a question of the Press Secretary). Anyone with a name and social security number can get into the room, and getting a permanent WHP credentials now requires a person to meet the standards of the Standing Committee of Congressional Correspondents (the only significant verification that a person is a reporter). See this link and

this Wikiarticle for more insight. You'll note Kinsolving is not part of this more stringent membership, nor is WND (See Membership Rosters

), but I assume Kinsolving got his hard pass to the WH briefing room long before they began requiring the Capitol Hill press gallery verification. My ultimate point remains: signing up a White House Correspondent ≠ reliable news organization.

I never left the conversation, by the way. I've been bumping this thread with periodic comments in the hope that new editors will see it and add their input, and I've also bee quietly observing your discussions on the RSN talk page; your edits to the WND article; your sandbox rewrites of the SBVT article; etc. I took particular note of your suggestion that we should look to

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources as a guide for resolving this WND discussion, but I see that it ultimately refers us back here to RS/N to obtain community consensus. Does this mean that a source (WND) cannot be definitively described as a reliable or unreliable source, but instead each instance of it's use needs to be evaluated by whatever handful of editors are watching here when the issue is raised? I know no source is infallible, but why do I not see citations to the Wall Street Journal brought here with the frequency of WND citations? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

First, I appreciate your making note of my "sandbox rewrites of the SBVT article" and I encourage anyone to take a look. However, it is neither a "sandbox" nor a "rewrite", but a "sub-page" (as is, I believe, recommended by Wikipedia talk page guidelines) and a highlighted reproduction (not necessarily up-to-date as is noted quite clearly in the header). --JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree with your "NPOV disaster" assessment, and while you may not consider it relevant to this discussion, I mentioned it because the WND citations in that article are the very reason I am in this discussion. I realize now that was not evident. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if I might proceed to something relevant to a determination of WND RS (and limiting my comments to one observation at a time), as to...

WHP credentials now requires a person to meet the standards of the Standing Committee of Congressional Correspondents (the only significant verification that a person is a reporter).

Unfortunately, you neglected to note Part II of the process as is clearly defined in the followup story on the WHCA/WH Press Secretary Scott McClellan meeting referred to in the E&P article you cited (highlights mine)...

Although no changes to the system were discussed at the meeting, some WHCA members had said prior to the meeting that a number of potential changes were being considered. Those included tighter restrictions on who can receive daily press passes, such as those Guckert had obtained, and a more active role by the WHCA in approving requests for credentials, which are now solely handed out by the White House Press Office.

Currently, two types of press passes are issued. The "hard pass," which allows reporters regular ongoing access to the White House, and "day passes," which must be issued each morning and are good only for one day. Hard passes are more difficult to obtain, requiring the reporter to first obtain a Capitol Hill credential, issued by a committee of congressional reporters known as the Standing Committee of Correspondents.

If obtaining permanent White House press credentials is a 2-part process (at least as of Feb 2005) in which the WHCA plays NO (at least apparent) part, then for what purpose did you inject what appears to be irrelevant comments related to WHCA's post-White House credentialing activity? What aspect of my initial observation is it supposed to question, qualify or rebut? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Neglected to note?" Quite the contrary, you just repeated to me exactly what I had written. I've "bolded" sections of my previous comment to clarify, for your benefit. As for my purpose in explaining all of the above, I thought I was clear on that as well: You raised the fact that WND signed up a White House Correspondent, as if that somehow added credibility or reliability to WND, and I pointed out it does not. Neither WND, nor the Correspondent (Kinsolving, I am assuming - was there another?) are members of the Capitol Hill gallery, nor have either been vetted through the Capitol Hill accreditation process. (Phone calls to both the Capitol Hill Standing Committee and the White House Correspondents Association confirmed this, and gave me the additional information that: "While Congressional Press Gallery credentials are helpful, they are not required for WHCA membership or a permanent Briefing Room pass." Go figure. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WND, nor the Correspondent (Kinsolving,...have either been vetted through the Capitol Hill accreditation process.

...which, as you have so admirably reported, has apparently moved into maiden aunt territory inre the issuance of WH "hard passes". Perhaps the Capitol Hill Standing Committee can throw a better annual bash than the WHCA.

Quite surprisingly, given the seeming media impetus reflected in the 2 articles above, WHCA/CHSC influence over the process has apparently regressed even further than in 2005, probably much to their chagrin, and WHPO control over the process now reigns supreme. My compliments on your effort in undertaking a rather above-and-beyond pursuit of horse's mouth sourcing and your forthrightness in reporting the "news". Now, as much as I'd enjoy more rhetorical jockeying until we beat this to a fare-thee-well (if we haven't already), I'll forego that pleasure and (again) attempt a return to something perhaps more productive and your now twice-stated yet barely addressed "ultimate point": "...signing up a White House Correspondent ≠ reliable news organization."

You stated...

You raised the fact that WND signed up a White House Correspondent, as if that somehow added credibility or reliability to WND, and I pointed out it does not.

On an assumption that what we're about here is attempting to establish some valid, examinable, referable, consistent markers that might lend themselves to a legitimate consideration of WND RS, I offered WND's White House Press Office permanent accreditation as an indicy, not as some de facto, case closed proof of "reliability". Yet you appear to dismiss it out-of-hand, as an invalid, irrelevant indicy after spending some considerable time trumpeting the crucible of journalistic integrity that was once a "Capitol Hill accreditation process"' and which assumedly is still applied with some considerable vigor, only by a different, perhaps more pragmatic examiner. While I'm tempted to suggest that an RFC on your rather amazing assertion (at least to me) might prove interesting (better make sure Huffpo and TPMites are occupied elsewhere tho), I'd sure be interested in some observations within THIS space on your "ultimate point". --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot of words. I like these: "I offered WND's White House Press Office permanent accreditation as an indicy ... of "reliability".

My response was to clarify that it is, pending any forthcoming sources from you indicating otherwise, Kinsolving that has "permanent accreditation", not World Net Daily. He has held that status since before WND existed, and he'll hold it long after his agreements with Talk Radio and WND expire (as long as he is employeed somewhere that covers White House news). Neither Kinsolving or WND have been through the Capitol Hill accreditation process, or any similar vetting through the WHPO or WHCA, that might provide "an indicy of reliability". Other opinions, sources and observations are welcome, of course. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, let's remove Kinsolving/WND from the equation for the moment. In your opinion, is White House Press Office permanent accreditation a legitimate indicy for consideration when making a determination of WP:RS "reputation for accuracy" or "reliability" for ANY media entity? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hipocrite, and with the others below:

World Net Daily doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards expected of most journalistic entities. It is non-RS. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

To state that WND "doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards..." and "It is non-RS" with nothing additional offered to evidence the validity of those assertions relegates observations such as those to unsupported opinion. Assuming this noticeboard exercise to be something more substantive than vote-casting for your personal position, citing a specific instance(s) that might evidence the validity of an assertion of WND "fact-checking and accuracy unreliability" would be considerably more substantive and, perhaps, advance the assumed purpose of this discussion.

I have listed and commented upon every "controversial article" currently presented in the Wikipedia WND article and, IMHO, all, save for one, lend scant support for an assertion of chronic WND "unreliability" inre their demonstrable "fact-checking and accuracy" record. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publishing of "controversial articles" isn't, as far as I know, a benchmark for determining whether a source meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source - so your vetting of that section of the

World Net Daily article in search of justification for WND's "unreliable" reputation may have been in vain. Your basic concern is still warranted, however. Like you, I'd like to see definitive reasoning behind the obvious consensus that WND does not live up to Wikipedia's reliability standards. The consensus surely must rest on something more substantive than widespread personal opinion. If this is to be the "FINAL ANSWER", as the header of this discussion indicates, let's push for something engraved in stone - something that can be referenced with confidence in inevitable future discussions of this nature. But where, or whom do we push? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate your forthrightness and, if I understand your position correctly, you are at least open to and are supportive of an examination and consideration of the/any factual basis upon which this "consensus" determination of WND "unreliability" under WP:RS guidelines is based. I believe (as I think you agree) that recurring episodes of RS/N vote-tallying offering little or no substantive support for the conflicting positions offers no opportunity for progress towards resolution of even a temporary nature. Perhaps, on that seeming point of agreement, I'll yield the floor for any further observations on that point by interested editors. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, we can find fault with everyone from the NY Times (see Jayson Blair) to NBC (like exploding pickup trucks). If they are being used to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. If it's controversial, a second source would be preferable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The question was not "Are sources 100% faultless?", but "Does WND meet the required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight to be considered a
  reliable source?" Your two examples illustrate exactly why I would rely on content from NYT or Dateline NBC, and not from WND. Follow the links you provided and observe how heads rolled; editors, producers, even presidents were fired for the transgressions; lengthy apologies were issued; investigations were launched and new processes and procedures were implemented to prevent similar problems - because they do have standards. Show me a similar display of concern for journalist integrity from WND. Aside from quietly issuing a "correction" or disclaiming responsibility for opinions and commentary, I don't believe WND has ever shown the expected responsibility. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In what instances, "exactly", did WND fail to demonstrate the "required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight" that you assert. Surely, if their record in that regard is so egregiously bereft of the "journalistic oversight" required by WP:RS, at least a few citable occurences should come to mind? What, exactly, are they? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they effectively fact-check even basic uncontroversial statements, certainly not when it gets in the way of their agenda. Things that you could take for granted in a more reliable source, like stating a person's occupation, affiliation, educational status, are questionable here. In most cases, if it's noteworthy enough to put in an article a statement should have a better source than WND. It's hard to say categorically that they're unreliable for all purposes, but for the most part if it appears only in WND or if WND contradicts reliable sources, I would discount the likelihood that WND has presented a fair account. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And yet we routinely use advocacy groups (Media Matters for example) or media outlets with a clear bias (Huffington Post) as sources. It is not an uncommon believe that much of the mainstream media has a bias/agenda of their own. As Blueboar said below, it's about context. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed multiple times... and each time we have stated the same thing: As a source for an assertion of fact, WND is not reliable. As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable. (Of course, this opens the secondary issue of whether discussing what WND says about a topic in the context of a specific article is appropriate or not. That is really a

WP:UNDUE question, which needs to be asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What "final answer"? This final answer has been given over and over again. WND is not a reliable source, period, for anything other than reporting what it says about itself. Woogee (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Woogee, that is precisely the issue below. WND is being used a source for a column that they printed (ie, evidence that the author said it). Not a question of what the author said was true, but that they said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. World Net Daily seems to fail miserably against the

policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe, by anyone's standards, that a reasonable and legitimate indicy of the reliability or reputability of any publication is the participation of noted journalists/commentators who choose to associate their name, professional reputation and standing within the journalism community with the publication in question. Just for the record, here's a few who contribute their work to WND...Roger Hedgecock, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Larry Elder and...yes, Bill Press. It somewhat strains credulity to suggest that individuals with established credentials such as these would associate their names and professional reputations with an enterprise that is widely regarded as "unreliable" within the established journalistic community. It is inconceiveable that the wholesale repudiation of WND as an RS under Wikipedia guidelines should or could even be considered. That is POV at its worst. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the political talking-heads that have associated themselves with the publication (Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Jerome Corsi, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Roger Hedgecock, Bill Press, Dennis Prager...) are an indication of reputability, or lack thereof -- thank you for strongly making my point. None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way, and the one or two contributors that do have journalist experience (i.e., Stossel) are contributing as commentators and not as journalists. WND does not claim any responsibility for the accuracy or content of its columnists contributions. Most of those columns, by the way, are syndicated and printed in any and all publications that pay for them, including WND - regardless of the reputations of those publications. As noted above, WND might be used as a source in a Wikipedia article for "opinion", but not for statements of fact. When factual information sourcing (on other than exercise equipment) is required, we should cite not Chuck Norris, but actual reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way...

They are

journalists"...or do you now propose to edit Wikipedia in support of your assertion? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I am. Oh, wait - I just checked, and while all of the above have Wikipedia articles, none of them are described as journalists, so no editing necessary. User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course not. It would be redundant to say they are a columnist and journalist. But if you look at the article about journalist's, you'll see " A columnist is a journalist who writes pieces that appear regularly in newspapers or magazines.". And in the article columnist you'll read "A columnist is a journalist who writes for publication in a series, creating copy that can sometimes be strongly opinionated". So I guess you DO have some editing to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there's a point in there somewhere, but perhaps it's some nuanced attempt at hair-splitting that simply eludes me. You asserted that none of those "political commentators" (by anyone's definition, "columnists") "are not journalists". Wikipedia says you are mistaken...as probably do many other sources. Your error appears to be rather evident. Perhaps you might care to clarify? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"none of those political commentators are not journalists?" Does that mean they are? Never said it, and I'm not sure I even understand it. For my actual point, see below. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. An actual typo and a failed attempt to quote (you did note the quotes?) your text. I regret and apologize for the confusion it has subjected you to. Fixed --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted! Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that you might be as forthcoming with an actual response. Your assertion that the aforementioned "political commentators"/"columinists" are not "journalists" is, by definition, demonstrably false...and you need journey no farther than Wikipedia for the evidence. As your premise is false, so goes your assertion that those notable "political commentators"/"columnists" don't represent an association of credentialed and credible "journalists" with WND. You then stand by your flawed definition (to paraphrase your "opinion" below) and suggest dismissal of those established associations as irrelevant to a consideration of WND RS.

Nor does your unsupported OPINION that they are unwillingly associated with WND, victimized by the nature of their syndicatation arrangements, pass the smell test. My OPINION is that most, if not ALL, of those "journalists", particularly those who are "household names" in the medium, could opt out of WND publication in a New York minute. They are associated because they opt to be there.

...'journalist', regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard.

That's a straw man. Nobody here suggested it was a "requirement".

All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements.

Your opinion. I believe it to be HIGHLY indicative of WND's stature in the journalism community and, consequently, HIGHLY relevant to any re-consideration of WND/Wikipedia RS. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An "actual response" to what? I stand by my comments; you've offered your opinions (I assume this is still JakeInJoisey?); and I've accepted your apology. Is there something new? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you are missing the point. Look at the specific example below. If Jerome Corsi (or Chuck Norris) says something in WND, the question here isn't whether or not you don't find what they said to be true (or if you just don't like it), but whether or not it was said in WND. And WND is most certainly a reliable source for whether or not they printed something. This complaining about
  WP:UNDUE etc is not an issue for RSN. Go fight that battle at BLPN or on the articles talk page. And while you are so flippant in your dismissal of Chuck Norris, I could think of a number of topics he could be a very good source for besides exercise equipment. Probably more topics than either you or I. BTW, you have a stilted definition of what a journalist is. Opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. Journalists are not solely "reporters". Using the correct definition (not your myopic one), Ann Coulter (syndicated columnist and author of 7 best selling books) is a journalist. So is Jerome Corsi (author of 2 best sellers), Dennis Prager (syndicated columnist and best selling author), Bill Press (former TV reporter, author) and even Chuck Norris (author of a book on current events/issues) are all journalists.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have a stilted/myopic definition of journalist? Opinion writers are journalists? Chuck Norris is a journalist? Corsi is a journalist because he published 2 political agitprop books during presidential elections, and they sold? Come again? You'll excuse me if I stick to my myopic interpretation of what journalism is, thanks. From the link you provided: "Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility," and "...they are often expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good." Oh, I get it... I'm being punk'd. Good one, you got me! ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Laugh all you want.....on your way to edit the article about journalist, since that article says opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. I'm sure you'd want to correct it, wouldn't you? But hey, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Merriam Websters dictionary is though. They say a journalist is "a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience". Don't synidcated columnists and writers of best sellers not only aim for, but actually reach, a mass audience? And if they are writing for WND, they are writing for a news medium. Or wait, let's ask the US Government what a journalist is: "Some journalists also interpret the news or offer opinions to readers, viewers, or listeners. In this role, they are called commentators or columnists."[7]. Maybe you'd like some other references. Or maybe you'll just accept that a "journalist" doesn't mean "reporter" and move along. And don't hand me the ethics definition and expect me to be distracted by the smoke and mirrors. I have no doubt that you would call folks at Dateline NBC "journalists", despite the number of times that program has been caught doing unethical things. Or Dan Rather and the forged paperwork? Stephen Glass was caught serially fabricating and still managed to get work as a journalist again. The ideals of a profession aren't always the reality of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of your cited sources contradict what I have said. Perhaps you should, as you suggest, move along - since "journalist", regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard. All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements. Using your standards, I, too, can find citations supporting the notion that
  The National Enquirer and The Onion are bastions of journalism because they cover current events, or that J. K. Rowling is a journalist because she penned a best-selling book. No, I'll stick to my interpretation of journalism, thanks. While you are correct that the ideals of a profession aren't always the reality; the actual issue at hand is the difference between sources that try to meet those ideals versus sources that flout those ideals. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• So stick with your definition. It matters little to me if you want to base your views on an overly narrow and outdated point of view. Just remember that 15 years ago, nobody would have considered anyone publishing on solely on the internet to be a journalist, yet we have case law protecting them as journalists now. I'll progress with the times. Say hello to 1950 for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I intend to stick with the definition; your launches down unrelated tangents notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WND has a reputation, and it is very much not for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say no, not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things have "reputations". But the question still remains (despite the prolific echoes inre WND as an RS) does the "reputation" stand up to scrutiny. Two years ago John Edwards was Clark Kent. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the question does not still remain, as it as been answered repeatedly to the point of ad nauseum. Dlabtot (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "question" is...is there anything substantive, beyond mere opinion, within those "ad nauseum" repetitions of "answers" that might make a case for WND unreliability. Thus far, save for one instance 10 years ago, nothing else has been cited. Perhaps you might have a contribution in that regard? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny you should mention him. I remember that battle here when the Enquirer or Star (I forget which) broke the story about his affairs. They can't be trusted. They suck. They aren't reliable. They were right....and the first ones to cover the story. (No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need.)

• There is no contradiction between not being a reliable source and being "right" on a particular story – a stopped (12-hour analog) clock is right twice a day, but is hardly reliable overall. Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability, but one or two successes doesn't make a source any more reliable than the stopped clock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't imply there was a contradiction. In fact I thought I was pretty clear when I said "No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need". I just pointed out a coincidence that happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this clear... the only reason to do a blanket across the board deletion of a source is when it is placed on the Wikipedia black list.... and we never put sources on the black list because of reliability/unreliability (the black list is for spam sites, links that pass on viruses, etc.). Every citation to a source... even the most unreliable source... needs to be examined and challenged seperately. This because the context of how it is used, and exactly what it is supporting is vital in determining whether it is reliable or not. The exact same source may be fully reliable in one article and completely unreliable in another... because the context is different. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source, since it is generally accepted that WND may be cited in cases of opinion specifically relating to WND, for example. Each instance of usage should be evaluated separately. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And thats what I did but I think people are upset that consensus will lead to minimal use of this source in only niche cases... its like TMZ or the Weekly World News. Sometimes good, often not. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody is upset about that. The whole reason I got involved in this is the one we are talking about specifically, which should be left. They can reliably source what they've printed, so if you want to source what someone saind in their publication (as in the case of Mercer), they can be used. But you removed it a number of times. BTW, I never hear the mainstream media reference Weekly World News, I do often hear them reference TMZ. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So there IS consensus then except from Jake, but we don't have a filibuster here, so he's out. Its only reliable to say
  Jon Osterman said such and such on my own article, but not for anything else. So if Chuck Norris calls me a communist on WND, we will never use WND as a source for that. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• One should simply look who authored each specific publication in WND. For example, if it was published by Bill Gertz, the claim should be attributed to Bill Gertz. This is almost as good (or as bad) as any other publication by Bill Gertz. There is absolutely no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source. Doing so is disruptive.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there is consensus here that WND is fundamentally not suitable under WP:RS and you're spinning that. But who wants to completely remove it? For every one I nuked correctly yesterday I was leaving 1 or 2. But then you have situations like this nasty bit where it's publications are used as secondary sources in a BLP... it can't be used. It will come out as we find them per this consensus. Since I also read up on consensus, it doesn't ever have to be unanimous, so we're good. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One that you removed is the one we are talking about and there is not a consensus that it should be removed. Even some who generally disapprove of WND conceed that they can be used as a source as so what they've printed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We could care less about what they publish, anyone can register a site and churn out blog posts. But for example these two removals: [8][9] are fine even though they're events invoked by other sources. It doesn't make WND any more reliable.

• You do know that they print a magazine too, don't you? That's a little more involved than just having a blog, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to
  WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Let's take a look at those purported "Controversies"....at ALL of them...

9/11 attacks - Controversial "commentary" published by a contributing author subsequently described by WND Editor-in-chief, Joseph Farah, as "tasteless and ill-advised" suggesting it should not have been published without "...a little more thought and reflection." Is there a current Wikipedia RS media entity that hasn't experienced a journalistic faux pas of this nature? Can we at least stipulate that "commentaries" by guest-writers have little bearing on a purported news entity's reliability as a factual source?

Valerie Plame Leak - On November 5, 2005, WND factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) the comments of Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely referencing his recollections of conversations pertaining to Valerie Plame's CIA work and then, on November 8, factually reports (undisputed & cited by Media Matters) that Vallely, on further reflection, has amended his recollections.

Now, one might reasonably take Vallely to task for his changing recollections, but how, exactly, does this somehow translate into "unreliable" reportage by World Net Daily?

Middle East reporting - This one is a beauty. WND hires a bureau chief in Jerusalem who is criticized by "ConWebWatch, a website critical of conservative new media" as being allegedly pro-Israeli. Continuing in Wikipedia, "When Eden Natan-Zada shot and killed four people on a bus in northern Israel on August 4, 2005, he was beaten to death afterwards by a crowd that witnessed the shooting. Klein wrote an article for WND claiming that Zada was "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians" after the shooting, although he also mentioned that police called the shooting a "Jewish terror attack."

Leaving aside the notion that Zada actually WAS "murdered" (certainly by any western sense of jurisprudence) and that Klein also reported the description of the Natan-Zada attack as a "Jewish terror attack", this story is indicative of WND "unreliability"...how?

Litvinenko and terrorism conspiracy - Looks like there's some needed editing in the WND article on this one...which states...

On December 3, 2006 a WND article said that: "Reports that KGB defector Alexander Litvinenko converted to Islam before his mysterious poisoning with radioactive polonium 210 is raising suspicions that he may have been involved in a plot to smuggle the deadly substance to terrorist groups."[32] According to an article in The Times, apparently mentioning the WND article, the evidence for these suspicions was "gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour."

"...apparently mentioning the WND article"? Does this Wikipedia editor have difficulty reading? Here's what The Times commentary ACTUALLY mentioned...

"The evidence? Gossip from his Muslim next-door neighbour. If it’s good enough for the Sunday Express..."

Now, did WND actually carry a story based on the Sunday Express reportage? Of course, and the source of that story was acknowledged. Despite the fact that the Wikipedia WND article misrepresents a "commentary" as a news "article" from The Times and whatever the motivation behind the investigation, WND's report that "Scotland Yard detectives are now trying to discover if Litvinenko had any secret links with Islamic extremist terror groups, the London Sunday Express is reporting" is factually accurate. How does this translate into WND "unreliability" as a source?

Anglo-Saxon identity - A commentary...I'll say no more

North American Union "conspiracy theories" - So WND takes an editorial position that sees merit in the views of one of its writers and author of a book on the subject, Jerome Corsi, that has been "disputed in the mainstream media". Apparently the "mainstream media" found the theory worthy of "dispute"...and that has bearing on WND's reliability as a reporter of fact...how?

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Perhaps someone can discover some WND factual error within this entry but I'm darned if I can. About the closest item to anything of relevance to WND RS might be the last item...

"On August 2, 2009, WorldNetDaily published an article claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained and produced by Orly Taitz, a leading citizenship conspiracy theorist."

But is that what WND said, or did the Wikipedia editor take some shameful liberties with his paraphrase? Here's the [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764 WND actual text] on the subject...from a story whose very title, "Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?" suggests something entirely different than the manufactured and bogus paraphrase noted above...

"California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication."

"Purports to be" hardly equates to "...claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained." What absolute bunk!

Now, let me skip to the last one quickly before addressing the "Libel "Lawsuit"...

Health care reform and Nazi concentration camps - Even if Corsi might arguably be guilty of over-the-top metaphorizing, is there an RS mainstream media entity immune from offerings of this type of rhetoric from its contributing reporters? Please.

Libel lawsuit - In the entire Wikipedia section on "Controversial Articles", this is the sole entry on WND that might legitimately have some bearing on WND RS. In 2008, in an out of court settlement, WND acknowledged that the publication of 2 stories, one on Sep 18th and another on Sep 20th, 2000, made assertions of fact damaging to plaintiff based upon "no verified information". Did they blow it on that one? Without question. Does a single case of lousy reporting, 10 years after the fact, still warrant the Wikipedia RS "reputation" that so many here want to continue to treat as a given? Is the record of CBS News over the last 10 years any better?

I should think not, and, for the sake of the reputation of this Wikipedia medium, "Good Faith" Wikipedia editors need to do a serious re-consideration of this "sacred cow" of WND "unreliability". It is POV motivated and sustained, and warrants abandonment here...pronto. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above. But I would like to add my voice to Jake's in pushing for a more substantitive, clear-cut description of WND's standing as a citable or uncitable source under various circumstances. This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn? Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"? Are there media watchdog groups that have conducted evaluations of WND? Has Jimbo pronounced from on high his opinion of WND? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "unreliable" reputation of WND is accurate, and not POV motivated, and really has nothing to do with the list of "controversial articles" listed above.

Perhaps WND may have been legitimately perceived as "unreliable" at some point in its history, but one can't examine shadows of perceptions. Looking through prior recurrences of WND RS/N discussions (by no means exhaustive but including those you directed me to earlier on the Swift Boat Vet article talk page), I see no supporting evidence offered, save for the "libel lawsuit" a decade ago, that should preclude a re-consideration of the current validity of that "reputation".

A remark made earlier by User:Beyond My Ken is salient in that regard and, I'd submit, bears repeating here...(emphasis mine)

Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability...

In a decade of "fact reporting", a single, documented and substantiated error in fact-reporting 10 years ago should be "long haul" enough to warrant an RS re-consideration, would you not agree?

Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?

I appreciate your referencing this entry. I simply overlooked it...perhaps because of its rather odd location within the WorldNetDaily - Reach section. This probably warrants correction.

As to the cite itself...an examination of those currently incorporated cites/sources purporting to lend support to the legitimacy of an "unreliable and false" WND characterization suggests that the entry may be quite problematic.

Here's the current article text...with links and my comments following...

WND has been criticized as unreliable, "false" and "far-right."

One can, of course, stipulate that while RS for "far-right" WND characterizations may be plentiful (albeit, perhaps, arguable), WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS.

However, as to...

• ...unreliable,...?

It is not without reason that quotation marks were omitted by the editor in the WND article text. It is nowhere to be found in either of the sources cited by the Wiki editor. And as to those sources themselves?...

Source 1: "This time, the focus turns on the accusers", The Seattle Times, August 20, 2008, Opinion, John Young

This appears to be little more than a run-of-the-mill, anti-rightwing (and WND/John Corsi/Joseph Farah) screed. Perhaps you may see some relevance to a determination of WND RS in something I may have overlooked there, but I certainly can't. That being said, a short excerpt from a 2007 Texas Monthly offering on Mr. Young's political inclinations might be illuminating...

IN OLDEN DAYS, John Young would have been horsewhipped or shot in the back for the stuff he writes two or three times a week in the Waco Tribune-Herald....You don't razz right-wingers in what Young has labeled Bush-by-God country not if you value your kneecaps...Young is the rarest of a vanishing breed of Texans: the unapologetically liberal newspaperman. Since 1984 he has edited the Trib's left-of-center opinion page.

Source 2: "CBSNews.com article contains language nearly identical to WorldNetDaily article, including falsehood" Media Matters, October 15, 2007, Research, J.M.

And the purported "falsehood", also utilized by CBS News, and cited in the WND article evidencing WND "unreliability"?...

"Media Matters, a pro-Democrat media lobby headed by David Brock..."

...and goes on to explain...

In fact, as noted on its website, Media Matters "is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"; it is not affiliated with any party or candidate.

That "pro-Democrat" and "Democrat Party affiliated" are decidedly different declarations of "fact" has apparently escaped "Media Matters"...but, even assuming the criticism to be valid, could it be more petty? And what does this say relative to Media Matter's own standing as a reputable RS? (but that's another discussion already underway elsewhere)

• ..."false",

This is somewhat of a vague descriptive (WND is..."false"? What the heck does that mean?) and, being rather vague, I suppose one might assume that the word implies some sense of deficiency in their fact-checking reliability? You tell me. Perhaps the source can shed some light...

Source 3: "White House spokesman Robert Gibbs "lied" when he said President Obama's birth certificate is posted on the Internet."The St. Petersburg Times, Undated, Politi-fact.com, WorldNetDaily's File: Recent statements involving WorldNetDaily, Unattributed Author

Ahhhh....the alleged WND assertion is "False" on the Politi-fact.com "Truth-o-meter". Perhaps there's some "there" there, but unfortunately there's no link (that I can find) to the purported "Human Events" ad containing the purported WND assertion which would provide both source and context for examination.

All in all, little "there" there that might be relevant to a determination of WND RS.

(on edit)

In your prior comment you stated...

This is an issue that will continue to be raised here, and it would be useful to be able to point to some sort of reasoning other than majority opinion. My own personal experiences with WND as a source validate for me the widespread consensus about WND's unreliability, but we need more than that here. So where do we turn?

A thought occured to me that FactCheck.org observations related to WND might stimulate the process and present opportunities for advancing the discussion. A search of their website for "World Net Daily" returns 17 hits. One caveat though if I might. I've only checked the first return and, if it's representative of the remaining 16, FactCheck's observations are, by no means, gospel or definitive on matters related to indicies of WND RS. Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left. Nevertheless, their observations might be worth taking a look at as substantive cites of WND "unreliability" aren't exactly pouring in here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you, "...WND's political or ideological inclinations should have no bearing in making a determination of their standing, or any media entity's standing, as a reputable "fact-checker" under WP:RS." But then you go on to disparage and impune various sources with characterizations such as "tilts decidedly left", "unapologetically liberal", "pro-Democrat media", ... you really can't have it both ways, Jake. World Net Daily "tilts" to the right to the point of nearly toppling over, but that isn't an affirmation of unreliability. Facts will always be facts, regardless of the sources in which they are found - but that isn't the question here, and we shouldn't frame this issue in such a strawman manner. We're trying to determine the basis for the consensus that World Net Daily does not meet Wikipedia's criteria as a

reliable source for statements of fact. We've both reviewed some of the many past discussions, and while I see the consensus as obviously against WND (and you question whether consensus exists), we both agree that solid, citeable precedent is lacking. So I'll repeat my question from above: Where do we turn to resolve this? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Xeno, either I failed miserably to state my position or you are reading into this something I've neither asserted nor believe. But first, I need to address your reference to (and a rather unsporting bit of rhetoric I might also suggest) "unapologetically liberal" and "pro-Democrat media" in quotes as somehow evidencing a desire on my part to "disparage and impune" various sources. As you should well know, A. those were not my words and B. they were offered as illustrative of and in support of...1. My contention that Young's commentary presented no pertinent "facts" relevant to WND RS and was simply "unapologetically liberal" (Texas Monthly 2007) screed masked in commentary and 2. My contention that Media Matters' purported CBS/WND "'pro-democrat' falsehood" was petty at best and specious at worst. Let's play fair here. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out? (Strawman alert: I never said those were your words, just that you chose to insert those characterizations. What "illuminating" did you intend by them if not to somehow impune the sources?) Sorry, but I fail to see how pointing out a source's leanings supports a contention that an article contains no facts; or that your opinion that a fact-checking organization "tilts" one way or another is relevant to their value in this discussion. Indeed, let's play fair - and honestly. By the by, what is your opinion on the best venue for the resolution (or at least clarification) of this issue? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you fail miserably to state your position? Then perhaps you could restate it more clearly, without the (3, not 2) "tilting" characterizations I pointed out?

That's certainly my intent (but I should hardly be expected to be unresponsive in addressing several allegations you've made...to include your continuing misrepresentation of my "tilts decidedly left"). For the sake of brevity and conciseness, one step at a time.

The quotes were provided within the context of a response to YOUR query: Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?. Now, as I took the time to examine that purported sourcing (which your comment certainly invited) and deemed them to be either irrelevant screed or a specious allegation or an ultimately unexaminable source, one might think that a response to my observations (agreeing, disagreeing, something?) might be expected? Nope. Instead you present an exercise in word/phrase parsing and rhetorical gamesmanship, ignoring both the context in which the quotes were contained and the assessment I offered. If it's word/phrase gamesmanship to be, then let's go back to square one and re-roll.

In light of your query...

Do we cite the handful of links from the WND article calling it "unreliable and false"?

Do you now support any or all of the 3 cited sources as being relevant to an RS consideration of WND "reliability"? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You hopped over square one and went straight to my rhetorical questions (each of which I had already researched and found lacking in answers to my actual question). So, let's go back to the actual square one query: "So where do we turn?" Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(We can discuss your justifications for the insertion of statements like "Also, in the opinion of many, to include myself, FactCheck.org tilts decidedly left", some other time - the statements, like the justifications for making them, aren't in any way relevant to the issue at hand.) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of moving on (and hopefully some progress), I'll forego further rebuttal to your allegations...but my "tilts decidedly left" comment is still germane. I had offered "FactCheck.org" as a possible consideration for your "So where do we turn?" query. Had you been just a bit less hyper-sensitive, I might have hopefully explained to your satisfaction that my "tilts decidedly left" observation was a caveat related to instances where FactCheck.org's observations dealt with OPINION as opposed to FACT (which they do quite often, at least in my experience). Unfortunately, any consideration of that suggestion apparently got lost in the rhetorical shuffle. However, I now believe even suggesting taking a look at FactCheck.org (or Snopes or whatever might provide some substantive indicy of WND reliability) might be premature, given your apparent ongoing indecision as to how to best progress. Let's do back up a step.

"So where do we turn?"

An answer appears to be rather obvious, and you needn't travel any farther than the guidance of

WP:VERIFY standards applied to this consideration of WND RS, you'd be seeing ^{[citation needed]} applied to most of the content in this discussion. So where do we turn? Sourcing I'd suggest...an exceedingly rare commodity in this discussion thus far. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I won't offer a repetition critical of the purported WND "unreliability" demonstrated in the "Birth Certificates" issue (please see 1.4 The Last Time on WND or the current work in progress at the WorldNetDaily article itself, to which any contribution is solicited) but rather some evidence from that same article which appears to (quite ironically I'd submit) evidence WND "Reliability" instead.

Within the aforementioned article resides the following text...

However, a WND investigation has found that at least part of Berg's lawsuit relies on discredited claims.

In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child (Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law)

However, FactChecker.org (sic) says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.

The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship. However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Ann Dunham expatriated.

Also, consulting citizenship experts contend that if Obama indeed obtained Indonesian citizenship, it simply would not have been recognized by the U.S., but the presidential candidate would retain his American citizenship.

A WND investigation could not find any proof Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan.

A rather remarkable bit of reportage, hardly "helpful" to Berg's "anti-Obama Citizenship" campaign, from a purportedly "unreliable" source...referenced (as I'm coming to understand) by both a Democratic U.S. Congressman and several left-of-center publications.

Specific case: WND & Mercer

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilana_Mercer&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at the fight here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilana_Mercer#WND_disallowed BLP or WND? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Has anyone looked at what is being sourced in the example just given? They are sourcing the subjects own words in a column she wrote for WND. How on earth is WND NOT a reliable source for what they printed in their own publication? As a source for what the subject (Mercer) wrote, they are a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to source a statement that she said X on WND to WND, and it hasn't been discussed in other sources, then it probably fails

WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Both points are exactly right... In this case it IS RS... but mentioning it is probably UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does it sound like we're discussing if what she said was true or correct? That's not the issue. She wrote a column for them. They printed it. They are a reliable source for what they printed (and what she wrote for them). THAT is the issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that Guy said it fails UNDUE so it needs to come out anyway.

No... we said it probably fails UNDUE... if you want a definitive answer on that, go ask at

WP:BLPN. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Also isn't that a deflection from the fact that everyone agrees they need to be purged as sources otherwise?

• The question was, are they a reliable source. For sourcing what they've printed (and what those that write for them said), it is a reliable source. The weight question should be seperate and on the BLPN, not here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so we can source them for their own odd opinions if they printed it and that fits other rules, but for sourcing anything else, they have to go immediately. I think I get it now.

• First, please start signing your responses. I'm getting tired of the edit conflicts. Second, this isn't resolved. It's been what? An hour? Let some other people weight in. Don't be in such a hurry about it. Lastly, no, it wasn't said that they can't be a RS for anything else. The whole fallacy of this was trying to get people to say that they never are a RS. It depends on what they are being used to source. BTW, your bias against them is pretty evident. If you want to appear to be doing this out of some neutrality concern or sheer concern for reliablity, you might want to try a different approach.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this discussion has not run an hour. It has run months, if not years, and the decision has never changed. Niteshift, WND will never be allowed for any use other than to source what they say about themselves. Ever. Woogee (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, that is exactly what they are being used for in this case, a source about what was said in their own publication. Second, this editor is now running around to numerous articles, removing WND sources on sight and using this discussion as his justification for doing it. He's not even listening to what is being said here. And a blanket rejection is not realistic. Take John Stossel for example, a regular contributor to WND. The man has earned his reliable source "bones". Just because he chooses to publish a piece in WND instead of at Huffington Post doesn't mean that piece must be rejected out of hand. Stossel has an established reputation and the venue doesn't automatically change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, let's take John Stossel for example. He is not a regular contributor to WND. He is a regular syndicated opinion writer who distributes his pieces (and the rights to post his name) to any outlet that meets his fees, whether that is WND or the highschool newspaper down the street. He didn't choose to publish in WND, and not in HuffPo — quite the contrary — WND chose to publish his pieces, and HuffPo chose not to. Let's keep this factual, please. Just because WND has paid for the right to be one of many outlets to publish copies of Stossel's stuff doesn't make WND a credible source for factual information, although it apparently works on some folks to improve its facade. If you want to cite content from Stossel, you'd probably be more successful to cite a copy of it from a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you couldn't have missed the point more. Done trying to explain it to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll hold you to that. (And I got your point, worry not. I was simply correcting a gross misstatement of yours.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you missed the point, that's why you think there was a misstatement. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you. See above. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific case: Fluoride in the water/global control crazy conspiracy theories

"WND Exclusive Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer? Safety debate over public water treatments heats up with release of shocking new studies"[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63514]

How does this affect their status as RS for the rest of the world? For example at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=349044154

Unlike the previous situation ... In this case, WND is not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observations or determinations as to WND's "reliability" inre its reportage of specific facts are premature and should be tabled pending some resolution to the overriding issues raised by the RS/N title section and currently under discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific case: Swift Vets and POWs for Truth; John Kerry and BLP violations in WND

Is this a BLP violation then if WND is an illegal source? Jon Osterman (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a reliable source in that case, and stop calling it a law, it's a policy. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to
  WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Observations or determinations as to WND's "reliability" inre its reportage of specific facts are premature and should be tabled pending some resolution to the overriding issues raised by the RS/N title section and currently under discussion. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last time on WND

Examples of WND acting unreliably

• http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214 - "A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic." They added text to this after it became embarassing. How much of the rest of their investigations don't actually "include inspecting the actual document?"

I would suggest, Hipocrite, that you carefully re-read the story that you cite as supporting your assertion. In fact, it does quite the opposite. The document WND is referring to is the document obtained, and supported as authentic, by FactCheck.org. WND's "investigation" into its "authenticity" is echoing FactCheck.org's finding.

I might also suggest that the very same WND story you've cited offers a bounty of credible and unbiased fact-reporting that WND critics might find to be quite praiseworthy and remarkable. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? They said they did an investigation, which proved Obama's birth certificate was not a forgery. When that investigation became embarassing to them, they retracted it, stating that their investigation did not "include inspecting the actual document." This is what you consider the behavior of an insitution with a reputation for reliability and fact checking? Stop digging. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Aug 21, FactCheck reported that they had "...now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." WND's "investigation", reported on Aug 23...and based upon what could only have been an examination of the FactCheck proffered "image" of the document by WND's "forgery experts" (unmentioned in the original story), "...supported FactCheck's claim of authenticity." Subsequent to that initial report (parenthetically and quite openly appended to the story), WND qualified its initial report in order to stipulate and clarify that the examination was of an image, not the original document itself and that, because of that actuality, could not establish the same degree of "authenticity" or "proof" that a physical examination of the document might render.

You are free to read into that some nefarious motivation to renege on their original assessment, but I'd submit that it was, in fact, not a retraction of their original assessment at all but simply an attempt to "qualify" (as a common and most acceptable custom among even the most reputable sources) its original reportage of its own "investigation" relative to that of FactCheck.org's actual, "hands-on" examination. In fact, and also included in the parenthetical, was the following...

The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image's authenticity.

Now, you tell me who's "digging" Hipocrite.--JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=4347 "The original news release by WorldNetDaily.com of September 18, 2000, and the article by Hays and Thompson of September 20, 2000, contained statements attributed to named sources, which statements cast Clark Jones in a light which, if untrue, defamed him by asserting that the named persons said that he had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a 'subject' of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a 'dope dealer,' and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. These statements were repeated in the subsequently written articles and funds solicitations posted on WorldNetDaily.com's website. Clark Jones emphatically denied the truth of these statements, denied any criminal activity and called upon the publisher and authors to retract them. Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true. Factual discovery in the litigation and response from Freedom of Information Act requests to law enforcement agencies confirm Clark Jones' assertion that his name has never been on law enforcement computers, that he has not been the subject of any criminal investigation nor has he interfered with any investigation as stated in the articles. Discovery has also revealed that the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context."

More on request, of course, but those two would appear to be disqualifing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

discussion top There seems to be a clear consensus on the part of respondents that WorldNetDaily should not be used as an encyclopedic source for factual claims. Respondents suggest that it may be appropriate as a source documenting the opinions of its contributors, where those opinions are suitable for inclusion under our policies on

Perhaps, as per the letter and spirit of

WP:VERIFY, you might wish to elevate your contention to something more than barely supported opinion. Your sole contribution in that regard, which you apparently purport to be so breathtakingly definitive as to warrant its own sub-section, was little more than a cut-and-paste of an already acknowledged, dated and quite singular occurence of a decade ago accompanied by such a transparently bogus misrepresentation of a purported WND "transgression" that it still languishes, in all its glory, both undefended and, apparently, indefensible within a now mercifully re-titled (and not by YOU) 1.4 The Last Time On WND

.

I might also ask under what Wikipedia norm do you presume to tag a "resolved" judgement to an RS/N which you neither started nor to which you have contributed little more than a vote? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who are not deeply involved in the arguments here are precisely the appropriate people to close the discussion. Closing again, more firmly this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like people are asking about WorldNetDaily again. I think we understand it's a pretty politicized source. It's right-wing, pro-Evangelical, and pro-Israel, and most of the analysis and commentary in WND speaks towards those positions. However, like any other news outlet, it conducts interviews, looks through primary sources, and prints editorials.

I'd like to propose that for some sources, while the analysis may be too politicized, basic facts should not be a problem, especially facts that come straight from primary sources. A new editor ( though one who found RS on his third edit ) has been doing a linksearch and pulling out cites to WND all over the place. While some of these were situations where better sources were available that superceded WND, on others its difficult to see how WND could be unreliable in the given context.

One example would be the article on Jarbidge, Nevada, where an EL to [http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18045 The Jarbidge Shovel Brigade] was removed. This is a fairly matter-of-fact account of a protest where people were clearing a path that had been blocked by the Forest Service over a land-use issue. While the EL should be worked into a real cite, and there might be other sources than WND available, this is the sort of thing I'd expect WND to be reliable for and shouldn't be removed.

Another example would be the article on Ilana Mercer, where her own columns on WND were removed as a source. Her columns are a reliable primary source on her own views. Here I actually agree with the removal, but not for the reasons given. The quotes were taken out of context, most of them minor points from like nine paragraphs down in essays about other topics. But the unreliability was in WP, not WND.

There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source. Some editors have expressed concerns about political bias, but several editors agreed in the previous debate that there's no reason for complete removal of all links to WND. The practice has always been that we do treat WND as a niche source, similar to TMZ for entertainment news. Sometimes WND will be the one that has detailed information on the Tea Party movement or a land-use dispute out West, just as sometimes TMZ has the detailed information on Hollywood. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we understand it's a pretty politicized source. It's right-wing, pro-Evangelical, and pro-Israel, and most of the analysis and commentary in WND speaks towards those positions. All of that is totally irrelevant. WND is not a reliable source because it has a poor reputation for accuracy. Perceived bias has nothing to do with it. Dlabtot (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WND is not a reliable source because it has a poor reputation for accuracy.

If a "reputation", when examined for its veracity, is found to be unsupportable by even a minimum of sourcing in fact, it can and should be dismissed as unfounded by any rational consideration of its validity. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There was never consensus to disallow WND as a source." Incorrect. Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content. As noted above, accuracy and oversight, and not political leanings, are the reasons for this consensus. Use of citations to WND to support "opinion of WND" content, or to support "opinions expressed only in WND" are gray areas to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such evaluations, however, are very likely to additionally consider

WP:VALID, etc. (Why is this in a separate section from the above current WND discussion?) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

What is the source for the claim that it has a poor reputation for accuracy?

I think we also have to distinguish between the magazine and the book publisher. They are two different entities, and newspapers in general generally work under quite different timetables and time pressures than do publishers, with corresponding differences on capabilities that relate to reliability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the criticism of WND that comes up every so often comes up because of perceived bias. People see Creationism or a hawkish stance on the Middle East and question its editorial policies. That may be a valid criticism of an analysis piece; when analysis becomes politicized enough, it becomes rhetoric.

Most of the criticism in our article on WND centers around a bombastic tone in some articles. There's only a couple of incidents reported in that article that show potential slipups in fact-checking. One was reporting of the likely-bogus Obama birth certificate. That alone shouldnt disqualify WND; CBS had some trouble a while back with some fake memos about Bush in the National Guard. The other incident revolved around allegations made about a car dealer who was involved in the Gore campaign, which resulted in a lawsuit and a retraction. That appears to be more serious, but should that cause us to ban WND as a source from all articles?

There was no consensus to only allow WND for opinions. There may have been a suggestion that WND should be cited with attribution, but that's not the same thing. Facts can be attributed as well as opinions. And yes, there's a reason for starting a new section, as the previous one looks like a chatroom, and is hevily weighted with people who arrived here from talk pages. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and in no way meaning to question your good faith, I don't believe your characterizations of the discussions are consistent with the facts. Dlabtot (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus has been to disallow WND as a source for factual content". No, this depends on the author of the specific publication and verification against other sources.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read the several dozen instances of the reliability of WND being raised on this notice board, and the consensus was against WND as a reliable source for factual content. WND is the "publication", by the way - not the contributions printed in it. Specific authors weren't usually mentioned in the discussions. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the millionth time - the website lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. The publisher lacks an implicit reputation for accuracy and fact checking. While individual books from the publisher might be reliable sources, and individual articles on the website might be reliable sources, being on the website or by the publisher are evidence against any measure of reliability. WND is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion is now beyond TLDR, but it appears some examples given that were supposed to show WND as unreliable actually don't. For example this article about water fluoridation, despite the racy title of Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer?[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63514] simply discusses some anti-flouride referendums in different cities. There's a certain tone and impression it conveys; it could use some criticism of the anti-fluoride positions, but there is no requirement for a source to be unbiased. If we were writing an article on, say, an anti-fluoride group, there shouldn't be any problem with using an article like this for basic facts about the group's position. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you point to asserts the following as a fact: "From Pennsylvania to Nebraska and from Europe to New Zealand, there is growing and fierce opposition to plans to fluoridate public drinking water, fueled by a battery of shocking new studies that seriously question a practice routine among U.S. municipalities for nearly the last 50 years.". I would encourage editors to read the article, examine other sources, and then make their own determination as to whether that 'fact' was adequately 'checked for accuracy'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chef, you also raise an interesting point, however, and the wording you chose prompts me to ask for your further opinion based on your hypothetical scenario: would you see any problem with using the WND article if the anti-flouride group was also "left-leaning" and heavily liberal-sponsored? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dlabtot, I'm sure WND is RS for the fact that there is some increase of opposition to fluoridation. After you filter out all the rhetoric, it's just "anti-Fl group A says X, and anti-Fl group B says Y". Where we have to be careful is that editors who cite WND must (1) attribute claims to groups that WND is quoting, and (2) not be swayed by any "picture" that seems to be painted by the way facts are presented. That goes for any politicized source, including liberal sources and many foreign newspapers. That said, there is a pecking order of sources, and if the same information was in a Washington Post article we would use that instead. I'd also be more comfortable citing WND in an article about controversies over water fluoridation rather than the main article on water fluoridation. Xeno, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the present-day anti-Fl groups were on the liberal side of the spectrum. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure WND is RS for the fact that there is some increase of opposition to fluoridation." If that was what they said, I might agree with you. It's not and I don't. Dlabtot (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly even without the sensationalist prose, I would not take at face value any unusual, surprising or controversial claim that I read on WND. "There has been some increase of opposition to fluoridation."... if I read that I would have to double check it somewhere else. Because of the WND's reputation for inaccuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Xeno, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the present-day anti-Fl groups were on the liberal side of the spectrum" -- not actually an answer to his question. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading some subtext into his question that I'm not seeing? Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chef, you said, "...but there is no requirement for a source to be unbiased. If we were writing an article on, say, an anti-fluoride group, there shouldn't be any problem with using an article like this for basic facts about the group's position." I disagree with your assertion that there is no requirement for a source to be unbiased when it comes to sourcing statements of fact. While acknowledging that everyone has bias and opinion, the earnest struggle to be objective, uninvolved and unbiased is the hallmark of "reliable" news sources. I read your comment above as implying it would be okay to cite WND as a source of factual content about a group's position, as long as WND is biased toward that group. That would be the same as citing the group's literature or website as a source of factual information, and there is indeed a reason why we do not do that. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to wade myself in the middle of this, but one metric I use when determining whether a source is a

Rhetorical questions have their place, but I'm not sure RSN is one of them. Why don't you tell us what you think? Dlabtot (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I may regret your reluctance to "wade in", your provision and suggestion of sourcing that might be relevant to a determination of WND RS is appreciated nonetheless and is precisely the type of input I have been advocating for. As to the particulars of those sources, I have already reviewed and commented upon the content of the Politi-fact source (I believe both links look at, ultimately, the same issue) but was unable to find a link to the purported WND assertion in the purported Human Events ad that might be examined for both context and content. As I stated earlier, perhaps there's some "there" there, but it is, thus far, unexaminable. As to the "FactCheck.org" links, please note that I have already suggested (and provided a link to) some 17 WND "hits" returned by a FactCheck search but am awaiting further input from Xeno (or anyone for that matter) as to his/their further thoughts on the value of sourcing to a determination of WND RS. As for me, I would be delighted to take a look at any FactCheck article that anyone might care to offer in support of an assertion of WND "factual unreliability". --JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{EC} My question wasn't meant to be rhetorical and I don't have an opinion on the reliability of this particular source. Overall, I tend to be a cautious editor so I try not to use sources that might be questioned (whether justly or unjustly). The one thing I will say is that we should be looking at the totality of reliable sources. If WND is the only source for something, then we don't cite the odd-ball source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring JakeinJoisey, is there anyone who believes that WND has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking required of a reputable source? Are we just getting duped into this discussion over and over again by a

I did not know enough to say whether or not WND would deserve a reputation for fact checking or accuracy, I needed additional sources to really make an opinion. For that I started, as you do, with the Wikipedia article, which turned out to be worse than rubbish as it was not just lacking in information but was spreading disinformation. I didn't know that from experience - I never heard of WND before a few days ago. I found that out by looking at how the Wiki article was sourced, and basically it wasn't. It was all original research designed to present WND in as bad a light as possible.

While WND may have had criticism much of the criticism in the article was just invented and it is rather disappointing that so few people have been willing to challenge the misinformation held on that page. If the contributors here have evidence of a consistent lack of fact-checking at WND they should perhaps edit the article with some reliable sources instead of referring back and forth on noticeboards which do nothing for the people who actually read the article looking for information. I don't think WND deserves the reputation it has here for consistent inaccuracy. It has made mistakes, like all news agencies, and I wouldn't rely on it alone for controversial claims, but I don't think that WPWEIGHT is best served by relying on just one source, however reliable it is felt to be. Weakopedia (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat optimistic that we may be, via a refinement of this now lengthy discourse (unfortunately now occuring, on the same topic, in 2 different RS/N's), approaching the heart of this matter. In the other RS/N, User:Xenophrenic posed the following and I think, perhaps, salient question:

By the by, what is your opinion on the best venue for the resolution (or at least clarification) of this issue?

I hope to address (and further develop) the relevancy and importance of that question to these RS/N's upon the resumption of his participation in this discussion...which is his recently stated intent. Briefly stated, it is the undefined and undiscussed (that I can find) concept of WP:RS "reputation for accuracy" that, I believe, is the nub of this problem...and it needs to be resolved...somewhere. I believe that appropriate "somewhere" to be

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. I will limit any further comment on this aspect of WND RS to this more recent RS/N. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ignore? How archaic. Yes, defending sacred cows can be quite taxing. And those uncomfortable questions? Nah...who needs 'em. Perhaps a cooperative, uninvolved admini...but WAIT! He's HERE! YAAAAAAAAY!

What a remarkable experience and demonstration of Wikipedia at its (cough) finest this has been. Enjoy the silence and the degree of credibility that stifled debate ensures...and, perhaps, spend just a moment reflecting upon the notion that the remnant shreds of credibility this Wikipedia experiment might still possess grow fewer and fewer with each abuse of administrative oversight applied. Seeya next go-round Xeno. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As several attempts to shut down another RS/N discussion on this same topic have been laudably rejected by apparent consensus of those who chose to weigh in on the issue, I am amending my prior comment to retract my observation...written in response to and during the rather unprecedented archival of an ongoing RS/N discussion by a thus far non-participating administrator. I was disinclined to challenge that administrative action and am grateful for the intercession of the Wikipedians who stood up to reject it. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, people, I'm going to throw up a few more examples. Does anybody have a problem with citing WND for any of:

• Minuteman Civil Defense Corps disbands. This is a volunteer border patrol group, a few days ago they disbanded as a corporation. It still has only light coverage in the national news, but the group was certainly notable and it certainly needs to be mentioned in our article. Is there anything wrong with citing this WND article on the matter?[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=131037] Seems to me a topic that WND is reliable in. The Arizona Daily Star also did a couple of good pieces on the matter, and I'd be inclined to cite those, but if only WND was available, would that be citable?
• Gay Fuel energy drink. Really. This is the sort of topic I wouldn't expect them to cover well, but they did. I'd been looking up energy drinks a while ago and this was the only non-primary source that discussed what herbs went into the drink, what it tasted like, and so forth. Other than using the clinical "homosexual" instead of "gay", rhetoric was to a minimum. Would there be any problem with citing this article, especially as the ingredient facts can be confirmed against primary sources?[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39283]
• Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. WND was notable in publishing some of the conspiracy theories. When citied with attribution, it's being used almost as a primary source here. I feel it's important to demystify conspiracy theories which means some citation and discussion of them. Many editors wouldn't allow primary citations of conspiracy blog posts and so forth, they would raise questions of notability. I feel some news outlets that are sympathetic to that point of view, while problematic as all-round sources, are useful in showing a modicum of secondary-source attention for writing articles about conspiracy theories.

I think the consensus has always been while WND might not be an "all-round RS" in the sense that the Washington Post is, it may be a "case by case" RS where depending on what we're citing may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. I know some editors may be trying to fight off other editors who want to quote WND as gospel, but I'm trying to prevent an outright ban on WND like we have a ban on the LaRouche publications. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, while I appreciate your contribution to this discussion (and will look forward to your continuing contributions), as your comment appears to characterize what I assume to be (and my apologies if I assume incorrectly) my prior comments as evidencing some desire to "quote WND as gospel", that is neither my intent nor, do I believe, is such a characterization supportable by anything I have said thus far on the subject. My intent, to be specific, is to demonstrate that, under an examination for substance, an assertion of WND's "reputation for INaccuracy" is unsustainable. What bearing my assertion, if determined to be valid, might have on an ability to cite WND as "gospel" under WP:RS is another question entirely and must await, I'd suggest, some resolution or consensus on WND "reputation for accuracy". A "reputation", unsupportable in "fact", is a sacred cow. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that "gospel" angle wasn't directed at you. I've been on other discussions about WND where that might have been relevant. Often people polarize into camps of "never reliable" and "always reliable". I'm trying to establish a middle ground. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, and a further comment...

I think the consensus has always been while WND might not be an "all-round RS" in the sense that the Washington Post is, it may be a "case by case" RS where depending on what we're citing may be allowed on a case-by-case basis.

Indeed, that may well BE the current "consensus" on considering WND cites, but if an integral element of the recommended WP:RS considerations in establishing that current "consensus", to wit WND's alleged failure to demonstrate a "reputation for accuracy", was proven to be without foundation in fact, how would or should that impact subsequent consideration of WND cites under WP:RS? Shouldn't they be treated as a "reliable source" for any "factual" cites unless the accuracy of any cited "fact" is challenged by some other "reliable source" ? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming consensus is that it is not a RS, and does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Notwithstanding Squidfryerchef's misguided desire to find a 'middle ground' -- as if this were about making everyone happy rather than about writing an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to cite that "consensus" is prodigious. Your ability to verify the legitimacy of that "reputation" via examinable sourcing somewhat less...in fact, thus far, undemonstrated. Please provide some examinable sourcing that might support your contention that WND's "reputation" for "innaccuracy" is sustainable...or even demonstrable. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dlabtot, I'm rationalizing what has been the practice on WP for citing WND. It's been allowed under limited conditions. Being RS is a sliding scale, and there are few sources so reliable they can be cited as the ultimate authority on everything, and there are few publications so unreliable they can't be used at all. The whole purpose of RSN is to discuss whether a given source is RS for a particular area. I've listed a few situations where I feel WND would be appropriate to cite, and I haven't seen any convincing arguments to the contrary. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, WND is not a reliable source. Neither is the Weekly World News. Both interview people, and occasionally have an article which is actually accurate - but if either of these organs have covered something notable, there are dozens of reputable sources to use, and so there is no need to even discuss this. If only WND or WWN covers it, IOW, it is either not true or not notable, and this is so close to 100% that it should be treated as an axiom. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly World News is pretty much a satire source, like The Onion, so that comparison doesn't hold water. It's also absurd to say that "if only source X covers something we should leave it out"; one of the strengths of WP is to be able to use specialized sources to fill in what other sources leave out. That's like saying, in an article about a computer virus that was covered by the mainstream media but only in broad strokes, that we shouldn't cite The Register if it was the only source that discussed how the virus actually worked. Still haven't seen any arguments that demonstrate why WND shouldnt be cited for the three scenarios I put up. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only WND or WWN covers it, IOW, it is either not true or...

Quite a remarkable assertion. If only WND covers it, how would would you know "it" is "not true"? Shouldn't the same WP:RS mandates for "Verifiability" be applied to an assertion of WND's failure to demonstrate a "reputation for accuracy" or "reliability"? Can you cite an instance, other than a single, decade old occurence, where WND failed to demonstrate "factual reliability" or is this discussion merely an exercise in vote-counting ? If you can provide such a cite, you'll be the first in this either discussion, thus far, to do so. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]