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

• smashinginterviews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello,

I was referred to this page by David Fuchs. I'm the publisher of Smashing Interviews Magazine (smashinginterviews.com), which is highly cited by worldwide mainstream media and is a notable media outlet that conducts 1-1 interviews with high profile people of all genres. We have been established for over a decade. We have been whitelisted for "spamming" for the best part of our existence and considered an "unreliable source" by Wikipedia, which has led to embarrassment, when others attempted to cite our articles and inuired about our being classified as "unreliable." We have been ongoing targets of hacking, which likely led to the original spamming whitelisting and the classification as an "unreliable source." My mission is thusly twofold: (a) to be reclassified as a reliable source. (b) to be removed from the whitelist.

Here are examples of our Smashing Interviews Magazine (smashinginterviews.com) articles being cited by major press outlets:

Source: Adweek

Article: https://www.adweek.com/tv-video/ed-asner-mary-tyler-moore-show-lou-grant/

Source: The New York Times

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/movies/candida-royalle-maker-of-x-rated-films-dies-at-64.html

Source: The Washington Post

Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/george-kennedy-oscar-winning-character-actor-of-cool-hand-luke-dies-at-91/2016/02/29/f4451a92-df2f-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html

Source: People magazine

Article: https://people.com/movies/kelly-mcgillis-returns-to-acting-on-her-own-terms/

Source: ABC News

Article: https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/things-knew-princess-bride/story?id=25248519

Also, here is an interview by the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada, Reno, NPR radio/podcast "Open Room Media."

Source: Open Room Media

Article: https://openroommedia.com/2017/04/004-smashing-interviews-a-smart-pivot/

Open Room Media about page: https://openroommedia.com/about-2/

Thank you for your consideration,

Marc Parker Publisher Smashing Interviews Magazine— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

Note (which has not necessarily anything to do with reliability, though may give context to above claims): this was blacklisted (not whitelisted) by user:Ckatz back in 2010 after spamming by site owners. In 2013 someone with a conflict of interest asked for delisting. I am checking for continued attempts to spam now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just adding to this that the original reason for the blacklisting by Ckatz was 'history of self-promotion, IPs adding links', not a judgement of the site's reliability. Jr8825 • Talk 13:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I agree, I cannot find any judgement regarding reliability, though showing that one is a reliable source does increase your chances at whitelisting / de-blacklisting (though, we generally do not grant that when site-owners request that).

@all: IP claims here that the spamming was due to being hacked (in other words, a kind of a Joe Job?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for what, exactly? Interviews are very low down the list of sources Wikipedia accepts (they are primary and affiliated with the subject, we prefer sources that are secondary and independent). The site was blacklisted due to spamming, which is unlikely to change. Any requests for whitelisting of individual links would need to come from a member of the Wikipedia community in good standing, and would be specific to single URL with a credible rationale for inclusion. Wikipedia is not here to improve your reach or SEO. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra is correct. This all happened early on in the publications existence, 10 years ago. The magazine is one-on-one interviews only. The interviews are the primary sources for numerous articles by major media outlets, a sample of which I provided links to above. A rep for one of our interviewees attempted to add an interview link to a Wikipedia page and was told they couldn't because we're an unreliable source, which we obviously are not. No one from our outlet has ever added links to any page, nor have we self-promoted. This situation is an ongoing source of contention and embarrassment, which is amplified by the fact that we are dealing with high-profile people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk)

We don't want a rep for an interviewee adding it to their client's Wikipedia page - they have a conflict of interest as well. That sort of thing is part of the reason your site ended up blacklisted in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Three things: I don't have any control over the actions of a famous person's rep. Why should that get my org banned from Wikipedia? Also, that's not the point. I only mentioned that story due to the fact that it was that particular situation which brought it to my attention that we were not considered a reliable source. lastly, if we weren't a reliable source, why would a famous person's rep want to deal with us in the first place?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

If interviews (which are the backbone of journalism) are considered to be very low down on the list of sources Wikipedia accepts, why then does Interview magazine (Andy Warhol's publication) have a Wikipedia entry and not us? Why are we being held responsible for something hackers did to sabotage our publication's reputation 10 years ago? We have many questions, but no real answers. How can we rectify this ridiculous situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

By walking away, because it's not actually ridiculous. Wikipedia uses reliable independent secondary sources, your magazine is not one of those, your only proposed use case is a violation of our policies as well, and no Wikipedian in good standing has made any request for a link. Case closed. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is ridiculous, and case is not closed. Hackers sabotaged our site 10 years ago. They have not done anything since then to sabotage the site. No one has. We certainly have not. There is nothing there to warrant a lifetime ban. You have absolutely no proof that we are an unreliable source. We are cited by major media outlets around the world, in textbooks, in academic papers and magazines. We are a primary source for secondary sources as shown to you in several links. Your argument holds no merit, so this appears to be a personal vendetta you have against us personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

To get your publication removed from the blacklist you need to post to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. The blacklist for spam was 10 years ago. I think enough time has passed that whatever problem it was meant to address is no longer an issue.

The source is not mentioned at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so there is no determination of reliability. There is a distinction between reliability of a publisher and those of people interviewed. What we expect from a publisher is that their published interviews accurately reflect what the person said. Rarely would we consider statements made in interviews to be reliable. Journalists however have the expertise to determine what is or is not reliable and we accept their judgment, but use their articles as sources rather than the original interview.

TFD (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree with TFD's "I think enough time has passed that whatever problem it was meant to address is no longer an issue" – A WP:COI editor comes to this noticeboard explaining that they want the behaviour that led to the site's blacklisting in the first place (which afaics is rather the IP spamming than it being hijacked 10 years ago) to be resumed ASAP. Yes, the place where that can be asked is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, but with a link to this WP:RSN discussion in that request, I suppose a chance for the site being whitelisted would be rather low. And it is, of course, of little use to discuss the reliability issue (which is indeed a separate & undecided issue) in the appropriate place, i.e. here, as long as the site is blacklisted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, we were blacklisted 10 years ago due to hacking/spoofing sabotage, not because we were deemed unreliable. We were told it was because of "spamming" and that the ban would never be lifted. After that initial sabotage by hackers, nothing else has occurred over a 10-year span. So why should we continue to be blacklisted for that? We should not be. As far as being a reliable source, our interviews absolutely accurately reflect what the person said. Each person is recorded on the phone or in person. We have their exact words when we transcribe each interview and have never been told "I never said that" or anything like that. Also given to you here were many links to mentions and citations from major news outlets that absolutely would not use us as a source if we were not reliable. Colleges would not use our interviews in their curriculum of study, textbooks would not use us as a source if we were not reliable. Example: From the "Life" book titled "Fleetwood Mac" using our interview with the band's producer Ken Caillat - "Who's this? Oh yeah, you're the guy from 20 years ago, Caillat told journalist Melissa Parker on Smashinginterviews.com in 2012." The editors of Life magazine are the authors of the book. Link - https://books.google.com/books?id=RF7UDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT103&lpg=PT103&dq=%22journalist%20melissa%20parker%22&source=bl&ots=ouNdUi1CWI&sig=ACfU3U2aKxYQ3Z45sx9GUHnuAhuse3xMaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjK1dzSnqfrAhWSiK0KHbS2BakQ6AEwC3oECAEQAQ&fbclid=IwAR3euchJGplv4E9qK81-bjPsPH9yHSk8zKF5-ijw3Zgy1qrrl484peW5YNg#v=onepage&q=%22journalist%20melissa%20parker%22&f=false Publisher and journalist Marc Parker's Google knowledge panel - g.co/kgs/aU8ENz Marc Parker, Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, Journalist verified at Muckrack - https://muckrack.com/marc-parker Smashing Interviews Magazine - verified at Muckrack - https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/smashinginterviews Melissa Parker, founder - https://muckrack.com/melissaparker Muckrack is a peer-reviewed journalistic database that requires its entrants to be verified by other journalists. Smashing Interviews Magazine is and always has been a reliable source and unequivocally deserves a Wiki entry as do the founders, Marc Parker and Melissa Parker (credentialed journalists, current publishers of Smashing Interviews Magazine, former publishers of a news magazine and authors of a book published by The History Press/Arcadia, a biography on famed industrialist Daniel Pratt and the city he founded, which is an installation of a series of American books called the "brief history series.") Link to the book - g.co/kgs/zZGqkf -- Melissa Parker— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

• As user:Francis Schonken, and out of experience, I also disagree with user:TfD's assessment that they 'think enough time has passed'. We have cases of 10 years on our list. Spam/COI editing/promotional editing/paid editing does not just go away after a bit of time. Having yourself positively expressed on Wikipedia pays your bills, some of these 'spammers' (to put them under one flag) come back every (other) year asking to be delisted, or they find workarounds and/or use other domains. For other sites it is not the company itself that is necessarily responsible, but people who 'use' the site (compare it to petition sites and porn sites, I am not aware of cases where owners/representatives spamming porn sites, but the sites get heavily abused).

The above discussion suggests that this site has limited use as a reliable source. I would therefore suggest editors who want to use this to ask on the whitelist for their specific case.  IF we have consensus that this site is of general use (as a reliable source), or we get overwhelmed with whitelist requests that get granted we can revisit the blacklisting. Until then:  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, the website is NOT a spam site, and it is NOT used as such. It has NEVER been used as such. The reason for creating the site was as a pivot from the news magazine we were running which was well established. This pivot is detailed in the link above regarding an interview that was done on us by the Univ. of Nevada Las Vegas Reynolds School of Journalism on us being journalistic media entrepreneurs. Again, the publication would also not be used as a reliable source for major media outlets, etc., if it was a spam site. It was founded as an interview magazine, and shortly after we started the magazine, we became aware that hackers or competition of ours posted a couple of links on interviewee's pages to sabotage the publication. That was 10 years ago. They have not sabotaged us since, and publishers Marc Parker and Melissa Parker are not spammers. Thus, there is no reason for the blacklist. And why would you say that the site has a limited use as a reliable source? Should we post here NUMEROUS links to mentions and citations? Do you not see Muckrack as a reliable source? What other proof do you need? Please give us answers to these questions. -- Melissa Parker— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.35.185 (talk • contribs)

If the website is blacklisted, why is it used a source for a few Wikipedia articles? I performed a search for "Smashing Interviews". It is cited in the articles James Maslow, Laura Harring, Rebecca Da Costa, Footprint (album), It's a SpongeBob Christmas!, Lexi Thompson, The Happys, Gary Wright, Carol M. Highsmith, If You Believe (George Harrison song), and The Answer's at the End. With Melissa Parker cited as the writer/interviewer in most cases. Dimadick (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I notified the original blocking administrator of this discussion.[1] TFD (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you check their edit history? User:Ckatz was last active on 20 April, 2020. Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, Dimadick. The magazine is a source for several Wikipedia articles, but we were told there wouldn't be any hot links to our publication because we were blacklisted in 2010. For example, here's the article on James Maslow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Maslow - Under reference #6, you will see my name and Smashing Interviews Magazine, but then it says missing or empty url. We've had several interviewees say they tried to put a hot link on Wikipedia to their interview and was unable to do so. If the publication is not a reliable source, why were they trying to post the link from their interview in our magazine to their own Wikipedia article? We should not be blacklisted. Smashing Interviews Magazine is a reliable source. We truly need this issue resolved as soon as possible.-- Melissa Parker

From reading your comment, it sounds like your main issue is your website not being directly linked from Wikipedia, which leads me to wonder whether your concern may be partly about SEO or generating hits. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and not a space for promoting or showcasing your publication - see WP:PROMOTION. We strongly discourage individuals with a conflict of interest from adding content, as has already been said above. You are welcome to tell your interviewees this, and that your blacklisting is not a judgement of the reliability of your publication. Jr8825 • Talk 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, thanks. I won't be telling my interviewees anything of the sort. They already know our magazine is reliable, or they wouldn't be interviewing with us. If they happen to ask us why they can't share their own interview on their own Wikipedia article with a hot link, I will tell them the truth, that we were blacklisted 10 years ago because hackers sabotaged us, there's been no sabotage since, yet we're still paying the price of being blacklisted 10 years later, which is totally unfair. That doesn't say anything negative about our publication. And if my defense of our publication, and only wanting to be treated fairly as everyone else, appears to you as wanting to "showcase," then I ask you, do you tell everyone else (millions) when they write Wiki pages or when they post links that they only want to "promote" or "showcase"? We're really starting to believe we are being singled out due to some personal issues you may have with us. I certainly hope I'm wrong. But we are being treated unfairly here.-- Melissa Parker

Coverage on Wikpedia isn't the be all and end all, ultimately your twitter account only has less than 4K followers and most of your tweets recieve 0 engagement, something I don't think wikipedia links will fix. Breitbart is also blacklisted but that doesn't have any impact on their popularity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Melissa, I am a little bit unsure of your motivation here. You seem to be conflating three distinct goals: 1- Getting your site deemed reliable (which allows it to be CITED in an article) 2-getting it off the blacklist (Which allows it to be LINKED to in a citation), 3- Having an article about your website on Wikipedia. Each of these three goals are separate judgements and governed by different policies. Achieving one does not guarantee the others. It is quite possible for a blacklisted website to be deemed reliable (it can be cited without including a link to it), it is possible for it to be whitelisted, and yet not be deemed notable enough for us to have an article about it (or vise versa). Please read our policies on WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability. You already know where to go to appeal your blacklist. Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My motivation, as I have stated many times, is to be treated fairly, just as everyone else wishes and to correct your defamatory label of "unreliability." There is no reason for our magazine to continue to be blacklisted after 10 years because of sabotage perpetrated by hackers at the very start of the magazine. There have been no further incidents since that happened 10 years ago. So why are we still blacklisted? At the time of blacklisting, there was absolutely no talk about the magazine being unreliable, yet when an interviewee tried to post a link on her own Wiki page, admins told her the site was unreliable. It us not. I've asked you over and over how the magazine is unreliable and have received no answers. NO media outlet likes to be called unreliable when they are not. Marc Parker and I have given you the case of reliability. I have asked, what other proof do you need? And I've received no answers. Our magazine has received in the multiple millions of unique views over its lifetime, so we're not looking for any kind of a "fix," as you call it. The magazine is extremely popular, especially as a primary source for news gathering purposes. Many articles are built around our interviews. As I said, it is and always has been a very credible and reliable source. It's quite befuddling that you talk like it's odd that we'd want Wiki pages (just like others do), so not understanding where you're coming from there. Why wouldn't we? Do you question others why they'd want Wiki pages, or tell them that Wikipedia "isn't the be all and end all"? Just curious. And under those guidelines you've noted, both Marc Parker and I (who are also published authors) and our magazine would be eligible for entry into the encyclopedia.-- Melissa Parker

You're conflating different things. You say that your magazine is a reliable source for interviews and cite several reliable sources that cite your magazine. Fine. That doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to cite it, because on Wikipedia, interviews are considered primary sources, and we prefer to cite secondary sources. That means that Wikipedia would cite those sources that cite your magazine for any statements made by your interview subjects, because we trust the journalists in the secondary sources to make judgments about what is appropriate to reference. If a good secondary source is available, we defer to that rather than cite a primary source.

This isn't the venue for discussing blacklist removal. The correct place is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals. But don't waste your or our time doing that. Removal requests are seriously considered only if they come from a trusted high-volume contributor, not someone with a conflict of interest. And, as someone who helps manage that blacklist pointed out above, any request for removal would be closed as  Defer to Whitelist, which means, a request to poke a hole in the blacklist to whitelist a specific link must be made on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Nothing stands in the way of a Wikipedia article being written about you or your magazine, if it meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:CORP notability guidelines, respectively. In fact, you could even write the article yourself, by following the instructions at WP:AFC and submitting a draft for review. The draft would be reviewed by another editor before deciding to publish it in main article space or not. If not, you can still revise and improve the draft.

You stated above "A rep for one of our interviewees attempted to add an interview link to a Wikipedia page and was told they couldn't because we're an unreliable source." So, a rep for one of your interviewees tried to violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines and was prevented from doing so. That sounds to me like the blacklist is working as intended, and an excellent reason to keep it blacklisted, to prevent further attempts to violate our guidelines.

If you're hung up about reliability, sure, I have no problems agreeing the magazine is reliable given the citations provided above. But that has nothing to do with blacklisting. The blacklist includes other reliable sources. If one of the interviews you publish has something in it worthy of mentioning in a Wikipedia article, then it would be picked up by a secondary source and we'd cite that; no need to cite the primary source, so there should be no concern whatsoever about being blacklisted. If a trusted, high-volume contributor requests blacklist removal, we'll consider it then, but not before. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Marc, Melissa, since you both use the same IP, and don't always mention your name, it might be a good idea that at least one of you takes a user name (see WP:USERNAME). Please also follow WP:TPG (talk page guidelines – e.g. use indentation when replying to the post that precedes your reply), and sign your comments with four tildes (see WP:SIG). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Blueboar that looking into an editor's motivation would be germane on this page. This page is about the reliability of sources: a source is reliable or not, and that has nothing to do with a co-editor's motivation. Marc and Melissa disclosed their COI, and that should suffice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: While motivations aren't germane to this page, they are absolutely germane to the topic of blacklisting, which unfortunately seems to be an underlying reason for this discussion here. Marc/Melissa has stated twice already that their interview subjects tried to insert links to their pages in violation of our COI guidelines. Those attempts failed due to the blacklist, but the subjects were apparently confused when someone told them the site wasn't reliable. I have no problem agreeing it's a reliable primary source for what subjects say about themselves. The reliability of a source is irrelevant to the blacklist, it is the intent of the links added that matter, and so far, there hasn't been one single bit of evidence offered that the intent of any link to this magazine is for any purpose other than serving a COI. Until we have such evidence (like a request from a trusted contributor to add such a link), then there is no reason to remove the site from the blacklist. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As said in nearly all replies to the site executives, the blacklisting is not a topic for this page. This page, WP:RSN, is not about intentions. This page is not about motivations. For COI issues there's a separate noticeboard, WP:COIN, which can include motivations in its assessment. But that is not here either. Nor do I see a need to go to COIN: the COI is declared without a shadow of doubt, so there's nothing to investigate in that respect afaics. So, about the motivation topic I propose to get off the site executives' backs, at least on this page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My error here... I used the wrong word when I asked about “motivation”... I should have said “goal”. The website executives seemed to have multiple goals, and they seem to think that all of them hinge on being de-blacklisted. I wanted them to understand that the three motives/goals/whatever were NOT interconnected.

Being blacklisted has nothing to do with whether a website is considered reliable/unreliable (a reliable source can be blacklisted if misused)... and being blacklisted has nothing to do with whether a website is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it (a notable website can be blacklisted if mis-used). Blacklisting, reliability, and notability are separate determinations, governed by different policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that something that can be assessed on this page is the use that has been made of the Smashing Interviews Magazine as a source on the pages listed above by Dimadick (to wit: James Maslow, Laura Harring, Rebecca Da Costa, Footprint (album), It's a SpongeBob Christmas!, Lexi Thompson, The Happys, Gary Wright, Carol M. Highsmith, If You Believe (George Harrison song), and The Answer's at the End). So far I checked only the first of these, for which I have two remarks (that is: preliminary remarks, before even looking at the source):

• For both of the instances where the Smashing Interviews Magazine is used on that page, it is not indispensable (there's a second reference in each case).
• For the first instance where the reference is used, it is for things the celebrity said in an interview about his own youth (also the second reference for that sentence is a self-declaration in an interview). Not seeing any particular reason to doubt the celebrity's self-declaration, it is however a fact that far bigger celebrities (e.g. Jim Morrison comes to mind) have been known to fib about their youth, so the statement should better not be in Wikipedia's voice (rather: "Maslow said that ..." or something to that effect) – until there's a reliable secondary source for these assertions (on the other hand, if no secondary source gives any bandwidth to these recollections about the subject's youth, they may not be really encyclopedic content either). The other sentence using the Smashing Interviews Magazine source is OK from the in-text attribution perspective: it starts "He has described himself ...".

Any candidates for looking at the use made of the source in the 10 other listed articles? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is TakePart reliable? (It apparently no longer exists, per [2]). For background, I'm trying to decide if Center for Council is notable, and I came across [3], a feature on the organization. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the author of the article, Kenneth Miller, carry any reputation to help with reliability issues? --Jayron32 17:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Eh, maybe? He's a freelancer (portfolio here). Published in a bunch of places that I trust, but not sure I'm going to trust him on his word--no Bob Woodward, for sure. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Rugby League Project is pretty honest about where it's coming from. It's run by volunteers and I don't have much doubt about its reliability in terms of - for example - match results, which are reasonably easily double-checked from books. However, I'm doubtful about it as a source of birthdates for living players, for which it is being increasingly used on DOTY pages. (August 19 alone has had seven rugby league players recently added with nothing but RLP as a source for their dates of birth.) I can't find any discussion of this source anywhere in the Wikipedia pages and would like to know whether others think it's adequate. Deb (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I know this is RSN, but for any situation where WP:BLP applies which seems to be all cases in that list, I find it hard to imagine publication in RLP is enough to counteract WP:DOB concerns i.e. 'dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public'. Unless the volunteer is the player then it's not "linked to the subject", and some random fan site doesn't seem to me to mean "widely published" by itself. I'd also note that for such a source it seems to be there is a strong risk of WP:CITOGENESIS. I mean even a lot of more main stream sources publish crap because it was on Wikipedia even if it lacked any sources. I find it likely finding the date on Wikipedia and no contrary information is enough for publication on RLP. (Not to mention 'my mate went to the same school and has them as a Facebook friend and they say this is the date' and other poor practices.) BTW to be clear, while use of high quality reliable sources known for their accuracy etc is an important part of BLP, the specific DOB concerns of BLP don't concern themselves with reliability. Even if it's well accepted a source is incredibly accurate and only publishes DOBs after carefully checking birth records and other sources, you still need that DOB to either by widely published or from a source linked to the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Dexter, Ray (2013). Doctor Who Episode by Episode Volume 2 Patrick Troughton. Amazon media an RS for any claims about Doctor who? Is it an SPS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

How extraordinary is the claim in question? I suspect even a traditional publisher isn't likely to carefully fact check a Dr Who book. Short of a statement that was clearly controversial to a reader who knew nothing of Dr Who I can't imagine much difference between published by Amazon and published by Random House other than RH is likely to avoid publishing something that won't sell in larger volumes. I don't think it would be self published though that definition is being debated as we type. Springee (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Its a claim the character called the War Chief is also another character called the Master. Its a common enough fan theory (one I subscribe to in fact), not officially endorsed by the BBC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a hard question. If this is published under the Kindle_Direct_Publishing program I would say it's little more than self published. However, even if it were published by, for example, RH, I can't imagine they would have checked such claims. Does the author have any standings in this or related areas? This is one of the areas of RS that I find difficult. I gave an example regarding Formula Ford race cars recently. There just aren't many good secondary sources on the subject yet if Wikipedia is meant to be a repository of knowledge it would be a shame for good information to be missing simply because it had to be sourced to, for example, the actual designer of the car's comments on a web forum vs a third party source. /rant. In this case I might go with an IAR approach. If the claim is widely accepted by discussion groups as generally good then perhaps include it as an attributed claim and perhaps note the BBC has not released a statement on the topic. I understand this is far different than my strict stance on WP:V that I was espousing just earlier today but I think a big difference is this is "entertainment" vs "politics". Springee (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as In can tell the authors has zero standing, and is just "an educator".Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If they don't have standing among the fan community I would really hesitate. I won't go as far as claiming it would be wrong to include per IAR and to a lesser extent a balance between the quality of the source vs the nature of the claim. Still, if the author seems to have zero standing even among the online community then I think this is probably just too weak a source. In thinking about RH vs Amazon as publisher I guess the one difference is that Amazon really only cares if the book contains politically controversial information that could come back to haunt Amazon. The nature of on line distribution means the marginal cost to Amazon if the work is complete crap is just a little bit of hard drive space. For traditional publishing there is the wish to actually make some money on the up front cost of printing the book. It at least means RH (or others) would think the author has enough standing in the interested community to get people to buy the book based on who the author is. I think I would lean away from inclusion but, were I involved, wouldn't remove if the claim were attributed. Springee (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting using it to state that theory as fact, or to state that it's a theory some fans hold? It definitely can't be used to state it as fact. It could maybe be used to state that the theory is one that some fans hold, but using it like that seems WP:UNDUE and (depending on the wording in the source) it probably only really serves to cite the fact that that author in particular holds that theory, which is definitely undue. --Aquillion (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not using it, I am challenging its use, see [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. Worded like that, it's a source for the fact that Ray Dexter thinks this, but it seems WP:UNDUE - why is the fact that he thinks that significant enough to include? --Aquillion (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell...because everyone knows its true, so any old crap will do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Anything published by "Amazon.com Services LLC" (as this is) is really self published. - MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• As USED, it reliably supports the statement (an in-text attributed statement as to the author’s opinion).

IF the author is an acknowledged “expert” on Dr. Who, I would say it is allowable under the “expert exemption” of SPS. IF the author does not qualify as an “expert”, then I agree that we should omit the opinion of the author as UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• It appears to be self-published. Who is Ray Dexter? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

During the Fox News discussions some editors claimed that mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC were promoting hoaxes and/or conspiracy theories re: Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Other editors rightly pointed out that the Mueller report was far from exonerating for Trump and his people. Yesterday the US Senate Intelligence Committee released a new report; everyone writing on the subject should take a look:

• Harding, Luke; Borger, Julian (2020-08-18). "US Senate report goes beyond Mueller to lay bare Trump campaign's Russia links". Guardian. Retrieved 2020-08-19.
• Blake, Aaron (2020-08-18). "The Senate's 'grave' Russia report: What we learned, and what it means". Washington Post. Retrieved 2020-08-19.

François Robere (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a question here about the reliability of The Guardian or WaPo? AFAIK, they are sources of the highest reliability, and pursuant to the normal precautions about using breaking news as a source from anywhere, are not generally thought to be a problem. For the record, CNN and MSNBC as news sources are both fine. Their editorial and opinion content may swing to the left, but there's been no credible problem with their news reporting divisions. No one should cite talk shows, opinion pieces, and editorials anyways, from any source, because those are not the news. --Jayron32 17:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's just for informational purposes (and also because I didn't see any mention of it in a couple of related articles). I doubt it's the last time claims of this kind are made on the Boards. François Robere (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing? I guess? --Jayron32 16:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Senate Intelligence Committee report is discussed here: [7]. I'd wondered whether Russia investigation, which currently redirects to Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), should instead be a disambiguation page with links to both the latter and the SSCI report, except that IIRR, disambiguation pages aren't supposed to point to sections of pages. So it may instead be that a note should be added to the top of the SCO investigation page that the SSCI also carried out an investigation of Russian interference. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, we already know that Fox is not reliable for politics, so what does this add? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: As I said, the point was to bring wider attention to the report, since a) some editors who have repeatedly claimed this is a "hoax" are still involved in AMPOL, and we should really be "on the same page" on this; and b) our coverage of the report was seriously lacking at the time; about an hour after I posted here Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election was created. François Robere (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music a reliable source for Electronic music genres.

• Option 1 - Yes, Ishkur's descriptions are generally reliable as the website is well researched and has had a few help from other people.

• Option 2 - Questionable, Ishkur's use of satire in lot of descriptions kind of downplays the reliability, but the source can be used sparingly.

• Option 3 - No, Ishkur's website is self-published and Ishkur is not a known music expert. A lot of the descriptions use satire, some of the genres are made up, and Ishkur only lists Discogs, and sometimes Wikipedia, as his used online source. (Ishkur claims he mostly uses offline sources, but he doesn't cite them.)

• Option 4 - Other, My opinion doesn't apply to the above options.

I'd personally say Option 3. What do you guys think.

• Option 3, i.e., not reliable. Cites very few sources for the claims made, and often none at all. Appears to be an impressive set of speculations by an enthusiast. At a quick glance, it appears to describe grime music as a subgenre of UK garage, which is at least contentious; Wiley (musician) made a whole song about how grime isn't garage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3. This is just some Randy from Boise and his personal webpage. It means nothing. Even in his "about" page he says he's not even trying to be accurate, and his analyses represent mostly his own peculiar opinions. No way that's a reliable source. --Jayron32 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. Ishkur is cited by a few musicologists who might hold him at arm's length. The cites show that he is not Randy from Boise. The treatment he gets shows that his classification scheme is generally respected, with some reservation about particulars. The Springer Science book Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries cites Ishkur on page 37 as one of several examples of an "Expert" making a tree chart in music genres, which is a common scheme. The authors, however, go on to argue against tree charts. Musicologist David Brackett approves of Ishkur in his book Categorizing Sound, observing Ishkur's "irreverent" tone while validating the taxonomy scheme. Way back in 2001, CMJ New Music Monthly pointed readers to Ishkur's website, praising its flowchart style while noting that "Ishkur" is only 22 years old. In Keyboard magazine in 2004, Ishkur was discussed, with a reader challenging his scheme on some points. A search on Google Scholar returned these three[8][9][10] papers that cite Ishkur. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Being noticed off-hand by a few legitimate music journalists does not really make him on par with actual respected professionals in the field. If someone has to work as hard as you have to find even those particular sources, it's not really that great of a look. There's also not a dearth of good academic sources on the subject of electronic music, and there's nothing he says that's particularly relevant that couldn't be found in a better source. The whole "taxonomy of music genres" is fairly widespread, but unlike Sam Dunn, who is famous for his similar taxonomy of heavy metal music, Ishkur does not seem to have yet done much beyond create this taxonomy and get noticed for it in a few places. --Jayron32 13:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 From "About Me" "Most of my research is offline -- magazines, books, documentaries, record collections, and personal experience. For online resources I loosely followed three laws: 1) Lord Discogs knows all, except when I know more. 2) Wikipedia knows some, but never as much as me. [...]" Says it all... ili (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 No reputation for fact-checking, no editorial policies other than what he feels is right, no real citations to sources. Also the use of Wikipedia as a source should invoke the policy on Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it: "... do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. (There is also a risk of circular reference/circular reporting when using a Wikipedia article or derivative work as a source.)" Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 it's a music enthusiast's opinion, he has no musicological qualifications, and as I recall correctly, the original website was done in response to a challenge to produce such a guide. There are better sources, ones we can actually cite without issue, lets stick to those. Acousmana (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3. Basically a WP:FANSITE. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Binksternet. WP:USEBYOTHERS applies. - MrX 🖋 13:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This source is used in [articles] For example http://news.streetroots.org/2012/01/18/candidate-interview-mark-white in 2020 Portland, Oregon mayoral election

The mission statement is "Street Roots creates income opportunities for people experiencing homelessness and poverty by producing a newspaper and other media that are catalysts for individual and social change."

The newspaper is described as "Filled with quality local journalism focused on social justice issues, each edition also features poetry written by vendors during weekly creative writing workshops."

This organization is an advocacy group that publishes a weekly street newspaper sold by "the homeless community", but in addition to selling papers, they're a political activist group and are regularly involved in all sorts of local politics involving poverty and vagrancy and has a homeless advocacy editorial slant.

Is the source reliable on matters that pertain to anything poverty/homeless given the express advocacy POV? What about in general?

Is this an appropriate source?

1. Reliable source in most respect.
2. Should only be used sparing on things that do not involve opinion and only when other sources are unavailable.
3. Only on issues about itself.
4. Unreliable and biased POV source and should not be used.

Graywalls (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment Can we use the regular levels? These seem pointed and a bit leading, its not even possible to vote for generally reliable (not that I'm suggesting anyone would) as the highest category is "Reliable source in most respect" nor is the traditional option for deprecation given. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

More generally, this seems framed in an RfC format, which the recent RfC on RfCs says is probably not appropriate given the lack of previous discussions on RSN. Might be worth just cutting that section to allow free-er flow of conversation on this. Jlevi (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with this source to give a strong statement, but a quick look at its use in outside sources, at its staff page, and at how it is used on WP seems to demonstrate that it is a quite reasonable source in a lot of cases. I see that sources such as Eugene Weekly [11]], Fox Business [12], and [[Willamette Week] [13][14] all reference Street Roots with attribution, indicating a pretty reasonable WP:UBO outlook. The site itself says that it has some standard editors and a number of regular writers, which is a good sign. And uses on Wikipedia all seem pretty reasonable, with the source adding highly local details in most cases and including attribution in all I see that are even slightly contentious. Unless there are any specific use cases that you have to bring up, this source seems 1) almost always reasonable with attribution, 2) quite useful for local matters, and 3) used pretty reasonable here as far as I can see. Jlevi (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My main issue would be significant editorial bias. They're not just a paper publisher, but they're active as an advocacy group. (https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2019/11/19/emails-show-portland-businesses-wanted-homeless-meal-service-gone-from-a-downtown-park/) and their mews paper stories focus on issues of social justice/vagrancy and matters where I would expect them to have the most editorial bias. So perhaps not in the specific example I have included. https://www.streetroots.org/advocacy

https://www.streetroots.org/about see the "advocacy" section. Here another news source discusses them for the position the advocacy group Street Roots is taking on a social issue in Portland. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/amid-spike-in-911-calls-tied-to-homelessness-street-roots-pitches-response-teams/283-cb0ee8bc-f0e1-4c22-984e-f1c0244e9a7a I can't expect their stories to maintain NPOV on issues relating those matters. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

For what its worth the Advocacy section ends "Street Roots values the importance of an independent press, so there is a separation between our advocacy efforts and the reporting our editorial team pursues." and in general I believe them. We don't require sources to abide by NPOV, thats for us not them. I live in their reporting area and am familiar with their work even though I share little of their politics, in general its solid journalism but unquestionably local in scope. I would consider them a reliable source for Portland issues with the normal considerations about exceptional claims concerning BLPs, I would consider them to become less reliable the further the topic gets from Portland and for national issues theres honestly no reason to be using them. On a normal scale I would say they're additional considerations apply. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of health stories in daily newspapers in the UK^[1]

Table 1: Summary of the descriptive analysis, by newspaper.

I have been looking into the quality and accuracy of the newspapers in the UK market. This research paper, which is quite rigorous and a first of its kind, indicates that the Daily Telegraph's reporting is concerningly subpar. The analysis of the newspaper articles was done by a group of experts in the field. Should all medical and science reporting by the Daily Telegraph be barred as a usable source and a note be made on the Perennial sources list? --Guest2625 (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would want to see more then one research paper by one (what are they, media studies student?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you ask if they are media studies students? Professor Martin McKee who led the team is one of the world leaders in public health. Here is his Professor of European Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine website --Guest2625 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Because a paper written by "the worlds foremost expert" carries more weight then"some professor" which carries ore weight the "just another student". But I now see the point, its not the telegraph in general just medical matters specifically. Well as pointed out below, we already would rather not use the press for medical claims if possible.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is what we already have WP:MEDRS for. Anyway, the paper's analysis is rather more cautious than the table suggests: "Among the broadsheets, The Daily Telegraph was more prolific, publishing three times as many articles as The Times or The Independent, but many of these were short, anonymous articles that seemed to have been taken from the newswires." --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Like you, I also found the information about anonymous authors very interesting. The difference in quality of articles that had a byline and those that didn't was drastic.

"Articles with a named reporter attained a significantly higher score (mean 5.54, SD 4.45) than anonymous articles (mean 0.75, SD 0.46) "

I think it is important that we address the issue of byline or no byline here on the reliable source noticeboard. Should there be different weight of reliability given to articles that have bylines and those that do not? --Guest2625 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty well covered in WP:RS. Long sources by a identifiable author will (almost) always be more reliable than short, anonymous ones. Any idea what the articles in question actually looked like? I'm guessing they were something like "A study by scientists from $UniversityX found that $VariableY resulted in $OutcomeZ", but I could be totally off the mark. --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that "Long sources by a identifiable author will (almost) always be more reliable than short, anonymous ones." It is not specifically stated in WP:RS, but perhaps it is just self-evident. My interest in bylines concerns general news articles that say they were written by a "staff reporter" versus articles that give a reporter's specific name. Once again I think as you state it should be the default if there is a reporter's name you should be comfortable with the source, but a bit wary if it only says by staff reporter. They didn't provide the list of articles that they rated, so it's not possible to see what the "no author" articles looked like. However, they did state "For 20 weekdays over a 2-month period (6 December 2010–17 January 2011), print editions of the newspapers were collected. ... The print edition of each newspaper was scanned by a single author from cover to cover, and each article pertaining to human health and medicine that reported newly emerging results was included. So, the 161 articles could be extracted out if really interested. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• How is WP:MEDRS not already sufficient in regards to this? --Jayron32 17:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My concern with the Daily Telegraph was in regards to its extremely poor showing in regards to the other UK newspaper sources that we consider reliable and have labeled green on the perennial source list. A warning to other editors is warranted in regards to their poor medical and science reporting. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Still only based on one student paper, we need ore then that for such a major RS change.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The need for more data sets is always useful. And we should all be looking for more data sets of newspaper articles that have been reviewed by field experts. Also, to repeat the article is by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Quoting the wikipedia article: Since its foundation it has become one of the most highly placed institutions in global rankings in the fields of public health and infectious diseases. The leader of the team was researcher Martin McKee a world leader in public health see his website. We here at Wikipedia should start thinking about implementing such a rigorous data driven approach to analyzing the reliability of our sources on the perennial source list. We have the capability to do this, if we have a reliable source wiki project page. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Writing a student thesis does not make you a field expert. When 5 professors come forward and say it we can say" experts in the field".Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how research works in the university setting. Your usage of the word student for researchers from a top caliber university is confusing. I agree that more data sets as always will help to clarify the situation as in regards to the Daily Telegraph. However, I do have another source, which gives 14 examples of poor medical reporting by the Daily Telegraph. My advise to my fellow editors is caution and to further investigate the caliber of the Daily Telegraph's medical and science reporting. --Guest2625 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• More relevant to the underlying newswires (AP, Reuters,...) + study isn't about accuracy. Most the Daily Telegraph content wasn't original by wire reprints: "The Daily Telegraph was more prolific, publishing three times as many articles as The Times or The Independent, but many of these were short, anonymous articles that seemed to have been taken from the newswires". The quality metrics in the study were also biased towards long comprehensive articles, which is true for quality, but not for accuracy. A short article such as "Pfizer releases new drug..." scores very low in the metric in the study, even if completely accurate.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of the aforementioned report. This is used in the context of [[18]]. Andrey Fomich Novatski is a prosecutor of the Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry (http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi), which broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. This is within the context of the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and territorial claims (Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict, or specifically the speech at Guba Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Statements_by_President_Ilham_Aliyev). The source is http://files.preslib.az/site/soyqirim/31mart_az.pdf p116. Maidyouneed (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the RFC tags, this is unnecessary and not a properly formatted RfC. (t · c) buidhe 08:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing.

The website chabad.org should be treated as:

1. A reliable general reference on Judaism;
2. A self-published / affiliated source in respect of the Chabad-Lubavich movement, used as WP:ABOUTSELF and otherwise only with attribution;
3. Deprecated as a source.

See background for further details. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

• chabad.org  

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 303 § chabad.org. This website is used as a source in 1,346 articles. Chabad.org "is the flagship website of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement". The issue here is that while the site is used as freely as, say, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Lubavicher perspective is a minority within a minority within a minority: a subset of hasids, which are in turn a subset of orthodox Jews. Chabad is on the fringes of orthodox Judaism; there are "profound ideological differences" between the Chabad movement and the rest of Judaism. It seems to me that the popularity and well-crafted nature of the site obscures its status as advocating a distinctly fringe position. Much of its content rests on interpretations of the law that are stated in absolutist terms but may and often do represent extremely idiosyncratic views. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinions (chabad)

• Support 2 as proposer. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: (Guy), when you state that "This website (Chabad.org) is used as a source in 1,346 articles" could you please break down the numbers: Such as, (1) how many articles about the Chabad movement and ideology does Chabad.org on WP link to? (2) How many times is Chabad.org listed in WP:External links in articles, usually about Judaism or Jewish holidays? (3) how many times is Chabad.org actually given as a reference within articles about Judaism in general? Outside of these three areas on WP I can't think of any way that Chabad.org would be used as a reference point on WP. In light of this research you may even consider withdrawing your proposal as unnecessary. I think you will find that your concerns are unwarranted and that the need for limiting the site as a reference point is overblown.IZAK (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2, reliable for about self and thats pretty much it. About self extends only to the Chabad-Lubavitcher movement and they are not a reliable authority on orthodox Judaism or Judaism in general. We must be especially wary of using anything the Lubavitcher have published on history as they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field. In general I think we should treat them like any other extremist religious organization, they’re much closer to something like Falun Gong than mainstream Judaism. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be using the term "extremist" here. The word extremist is loaded with negative connotations to terrorism, and insulting religions onwiki isn't conducive to a good editing environment. There's also no need to call out Falun Gong as an "extremist" organization either. There's no need to insult people's religions in this discussion.Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 06:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to engage in whatever level of political correctness and personal censorship you wish to engage in, I will continue to WP:Call a spade a spade. Deeply religious people with *always* find some way to be insulted by wikipedia’s coverage of their religion (and particularly their sect), ignore those POV pushing voices. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

But why call a hammer spade? There are criteria in the social sciences for "extremist group" and Chabad is not an extremist group. So please, keep your language neutral. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah Debresser! I do love debating you but don’t you have a COI to disclose before participating further in this discussion? I don’t see any note about it in your vote explanation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack—you say "they have a long record of distortions and outright lies in that field". What makes you think they have a "long record of distortions and outright lies in that field"? Can you for instance link to anything or cite any source making such a claim? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2: Chabad is pretty unambiguously a fairly small and often idiosyncratic sect of Judaism in general. We shouldn't be using them as a source for Judaism in general without attribution. Loki (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

  LokiTheLiar, no, it's not, it's one of the largest sects of hassidim in the world. It's also not a "fringe" movement in Judaism. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Any sect of Chasidim is small and idiosyncratic. Most Jews aren't even Orthodox. I never called them fringe but wouldn't object to that description since they're a minority of a minority within Judaism. Loki (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Loki—what are you trying to say when you say "Most Jews aren't even Orthodox"? This being an encyclopedia, of course we want to give a detailed explanation of the beliefs and practices of observant Jews. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 That being said, I think that the presentation of the evidence against Chabad/Lubavitch overstates their fringe status within Judaism. They are a highly influential and widely respected and well organized and effective minority voice for highly observant Judaism. Yes, the messianic teachings of some of their adherents are controversial, but they remain a powerful and respected voice in Orthodox Jewish communities worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Seems to be a minority viewpoint in Judaisim. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no viewpoint in Judaism that is a majority viewpoint. Editors here should take into account that the outcome of this discussion will be applied to any and all Jewish resources, including OU.org and Aish.org. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Chabad represents around 13% of Hasidic Jews and Hasidic Jews represent around 5% of the total Jewish population, meaning that Chabad counts for less than 1% of the world's total Jewish population. That's very different from just being a minority viewpoint. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, just to argue, if we are going on numbers and percentages, what percentage of Jews perform, or even know about Shiluach_haken? Do you think it makes sense that in this case Chabad.org might be a source? (I haven't checked, but assume it might be a reference or two.) It's on these types of articles that this RFC is proposing that we take out Chabad (and then in the future, the OU and other religious sources). I don't think that's a good idea. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia That is actually a stupid argument. I mean, scholars are less than 1% of the population, and still it is precisely the publlications of that less than 1% that are considered the best sources for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly sources should be preferred over sites like Chabad.org and myjewishlearning.com  , except where they are reprinting them. As to Shiluach haken a quick search came up with a section discussing the term in The World of Orthodox Judaism, which was one of only 7 hits on google scholar. Ultimately if Chabad is to be used it should be WP:INTEXT attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 Option 1.5, I think I'm in agreement with Cullen. Chabad is probably one of the most widespread and well-known denominations within Orthodox Judaism, if not Judaism as a whole. Their views are, however, often idiosyncratic, and their popularity is largely due to a willingness to engage with people that do not fully see eye to eye with them on theology; anecdotally, the percentage of Jews that fully agree with Chabad's worldview is much lower than the percentage of Jews that belong to their congregations. All that having been said, I think that the framing of this discussion is poor: I think that it can likely be used as a source for non-extraordinary claims about Judaism and can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If this were a standard 4-option RSN survey, I'd say 2, but among the options presented here #2 is closer to a standard #3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Rosguill, to be fair, that could be because they are more vocal and they, as you say, do more outreach and they engage and are very proficient with media, etc. I do agree with you though that the RFC isn't written correctly, especially when Guy writes that Chabad is "fringe." Chabad is many things, but it's not fringe. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• For "non-extraordinary claims" there will always be many sources without getting into talk page discussions each time about whether attribution is needed or whether the claim is extraordinary. Pardon the comparison, but it's similar to why we shouldn't get used to citing Fox News. The easy stuff can be sourced far and wide. The rest will tie up talk pages and destabilize article text with unnecessary good faith disagreements. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 As per my own previous comments on the RS Noticeboard before this RfC was started. Also, agreeing with all the caveats explained by Cullen328 and Rosguill above. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: this isn’t a deletion discussion. Whats the logic here? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye Jack, I mainly notified the WP:JUDAISM talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Chabad.org and then also placed a notification at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism#Miscellaneous for the same effort to inform Judaic editors. IZAK (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is a reliable source for anything related to Judaism. Its website is specifically meant for the wider public, and often brings points of view that are not specific to the movement. Even though the group itself is only one of many within Judaism, it is specifically geared towards outreach, and its information is not meant for the use of its adherents only. In addition, we would do the WikiProject Judaism a great disservice if we were to limit the use of one of the largest online resources about Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, the outcome of this discussion will have wide-reaching repercussions for all online resources about Judaism, including OU.org and Aish,org, which are just as much not representative of Judaism as Chabad.org (even more so, since e.g. OU.org is a US organization, while Chabad is at least a worldwide organization). Debresser (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at our Chabad.org article: "Chabad.org has a comprehensive Jewish knowledge base which includes over 100,000 articles of information ranging from basic Judaism to Hasidic philosophy taught from the Chabad point of view." and "Chabad.org and its affiliated sites claim over 43 million visitors per year, and over 365,000 email subscribers." I mean, is this really a smart proposal...? Debresser (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• 1 Chabad.org is an impeccable source on all things relating to Judaism. Ari L. Goldman is quoted in the New York Times, commenting on Chabad: "Obviously, it’s a house organ to some extent," said Ari Goldman, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a self-described fan who receives regular RSS feeds of stories from Chabad.org News. "But I also think it’s a reliable source of information."[19] Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• 2 Chabad has its own agenda and shouldn't be cited for general knowledge on Judaism, any more than I would support using Jehovah's Witnesses or Campus Crusade for Christ's websites for general information on Christianity. It's surely reliable for itself though.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Chabad.org's agenda includes foremost informing people about Judaism. Why would it not be a reliable website for precisely that? I really fail to understand all of you guys here. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—the comparison is not apt because Christianity engages in proselytization and Judaism does not. The only "agenda" found at Chabad.org is informational. You are saying "Chabad has its own agenda". Can you tell me what that "agenda" might be? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Chabad#Outreach activities Much of the movement's activities emphasize on outreach activities. This is due to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson encouraging his followers to reach out to other Jews.[110] Chabad outreach includes activities promoting the practice of Jewish commandments (Mitzvah campaigns), as well as other forms of Jewish outreach. Much of Chabad's outreach is performed by Chabad emissaries (see Shaliach (Chabad)). This is certainly a form of proselytism, even if it's only aimed at ethnic Jews or Jews of other denominations. Cf. also Chabad outreach Chabad Hasidic outreach is a Kiruv phenomena, whereby Chabad Chasidim attempt to encourage Jews to adopt Orthodox Jewish observance. It's already been pointed out that Chabad follows a different theology than many other Jewish groups. I'm not saying that's bad, it just affects how we should use them.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Every group has its own opinions. But the information on the website is mostly general, unless it is specifically about Chabad subjects, of course. I get the feeling you are speaking from some kind of theoretical point of view, without any knowledge of the group or its website. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—if you know of a substantive difference between Chabad and standard Orthodox Judaism please bring it to our attention. You are saying "Chabad has its own agenda". You are linking to Chabad outreach. None of its activities involve attempts to convert anyone to Judaism. And this is hardly unique to Chabad. See Orthodox Judaism outreach. Bus stop (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

They're trying to convert other Jews to Orthodox Judaism. I realize Orthodox Jews might not see that as proselytism because all the people who convert are ethnically Jewish, but it is as much conversion as changing from being a Baptist to a Roman Catholic, which is generally called conversion even though both are (religiously) Christian. Anyway, Chabad.org contains articles arguing for the literal truth of the Bible, for instance, which is in fact a substantive difference from Reform or Conservative Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is not the only Judaism, anymore than Evangelicalism is the only Christianity. Taking descriptions of Jewish practice by any partisan Orthodox source (i.e. a source that is encouraging others to see their version of the faith as the only correct one) and saying they're applicable as general knowledge about all Jews is akin to taking a partisan Orthodox Christian description of practice and saying it's generally applicable to all Christians. It's also been pointed out that Chabad is probably not entirely reliable for its descriptions of the Lubavitcher movement.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich—it's hard to understand how you fail to make a distinction between that which is interreligious and that which is intrareligious. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural objection – while the options presented here are not the standard 4-option survey that RSN regulars are familiar with, the responses nevertheless look very similar to that format, which could cause confusion among participants that didn't read the prompt carefully. The wording of the option presented here as #2 is closer to the deep end of #3 in the standard prompt. I wouldn't go as far as to say that that we need to throw everything out and start over as there's been useful discussion, but I think that the framing was less than ideal and would thus suggest caution when closing or otherwise evaluating the outcome of this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Then perhaps this discussion should be closed and re-opened as a standard 4-option one. I for one also object to not having been informed at WT:JUDAISM till after 4 whole days of discussion here, which I consider an outrage. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• The way it's written now, I'd say it's a reliable general reference for Judaism. I wouldn't use it as the sole reference on a Jewish topic and try to get other sources, but I do not think we should be throwing it out as a reference. If someone wanted to know what Passover was about, and Chabad.org had an article on it, I see no reason why we can't incorporate that as a reference into our articles. Are we going to next go and claim the OU or CCAR or the CJLS is also not reliable? We use what's best for the article and most have varied resources from multiple sources. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Chabad.org is a reasonably reliable source for Chabad/Lubavitch's views on Judaism (and other topics). That said, for almost any Jewish topic (including the topic of Chabad/Lubavitch itself) it is possible to find scholarly sources at a much higher point on the WP:RS scale (e.g. books published by University Presses). Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1. While Chabad.org often brings Chabad viewpoints, it is also a leading Jewish informational site beyond simply Chabad views (as quoted above from the Chabad Wiki article). As also mentioned, maybe a 1.5 would be a good options but alas). | MK17b | (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 Option 1.5 I'm generally in agreement with Cullen and Rosguill. They are members of a fringe group, but their publication has a good reputation. As Alan Feuer, writing for the New York Times put it "With such diverse sources of information, Chabad.org News stands at the intersection of professional reporting, citizen journalism and movement boosterism, apparently pleased to have its feet in all three worlds. The stickiest question may be how to cover the institution that spawned it. While the outfit’s stories are broad in scope, they are rarely, if ever, critical of the Lubavitch movement itself." Bacondrum (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option "1.5", per Rosguill. François Robere (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. Personal website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy (and no reason to think it particularly performs them; I couldn't find any claims of an editorial board when skimming the site, say.) None of the comments arguing for using it as a source are actually addressing the WP:RS issue - they don't have any editorial controls, they don't perform any fact-checking, and so on. All they do is publish the opinions of the site's owners, which means they're usable only for that (with the usual WP:ABOUTSELF restrictions) and nothing else. "It is a large website" isn't an WP:RS argument. "It's a useful resource" isn't an WP:RS argument. "Some people like it" isn't an RS argument. If you want to make general claims about Judaism, go to a source that actually fact-checks what it says. --Aquillion (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the The Chabad.org Team page is in fact showing the editorial board, even if not called so explicitly. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing why you'd think that. They seem to just be the people who maintain and write for it. Look at their mission statement: Utilize internet technology to unite Jews worldwide, empower them with knowledge of their 3,300 year-old tradition, and foster within them a deeper connection to Judaism’s rituals and faith and "Everything in this world was created for a divine purpose. All forms of modern technology can and should be harnessed to make the world a better place and, in the case of Jews, to spread Judaism in the widest possible manner." Nothing about reporting, fact-checking, accuracy, or any of that nature - it's effectively comparable to a personal website the like. I'm just not seeing anything indicating that they are even attempting to be the sort of thing that we would consider a WP:RS; their goal is to spread Judaism and unite Jews (with their interpretation of Judaism), not to publish carefully-vetted factual material. --Aquillion (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In the sentence "empower them with knowledge of their 3,300 year-old tradition" the word "knowledge" implies factual information, propaganda or blogs. But I agree it is not stressed clearly enough. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (chabad)

2010 ArbCom Chabad movement case, including Chabad.org

This subject was dealt with by the ArbCom about ten years ago, and they decided on no action. For more information please see:

• Background: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver
• Main case page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That ARBCOM case didn't address the question of Chabad as a wp:RS, only a wp:COI for some users and Chabad - or am I missing something?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a very long case that included my own complaints that Chabad.org was being over-used by pro-Chabad editors, you'll have to go through the whole case to pick up all its points, but the ArbCom decided to pass the buck, and required no sanctions, just some cautionary warnings to the pro-Chabad editors, as they (the ArbCom) glossed over anything the pro-Chabad editors were doing be it COI or using Chabad.org as a RS. You'll have to wade through all of this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver to find out how Chabad.org is involved in the complaints and case. IZAK (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich is correct, and that case was not about the resource, but about editors. And it remains in my opinion a repetition of the witch-hunt of the Hassidim by the Misnagdim and one of the poorer moves of IZAK, not to mention a chillul shem HaShem. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, don't get melodramatic. There were very good reasons for the original case, and Chabad.org was part of the original COI discussion. When pro-Chabad editors decide they WP:OWN an article, no one can get a word in edgewise, as is well-known, but this is not the subject right now in any case. IZAK (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is chilly or not is besides the point. It is a reliable and easily accessible source on almost everything pertaining to observant Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Belated notification

Why in the world was WT:JUDAISM not informed right away?! 4 days?! Debresser (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree! I was the one that did the notification [20] immediately after I belatedly came across this discussion. IZAK (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I've nominated Francis Baraan IV for deletion. I am currently working on a sources analysis. The author has relied on the conandaily.com site for several references. This appears to me to be the Wordpress blog of Conan Altatis, an advertising-supported news aggregator. The author believes the site to be a reliable source. It would be good to get some expert views. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source.

Related: The editor in chief, Conan Altatis[21][22][23] appears to be Conan Altatis. I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:GNG --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I just want to get a consensus on the reliability of fastcasual.com. At first blush, I'm ambivalent towards it and would allow it, but I'd prefer to hear from the community since we don't have an article on it not its parent company. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No comment on reliability but on their about us page they openly call for press releases. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with that. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I notice Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not yet mention South China Morning Post (SCMP).

I know there have been ownership changes and the recent Hong Kong National Security Law (effective July 1, 2020) may impact reporting at the SCMP (and the same law could impact every publication in Hong Kong SAR).

I found at least one previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Straits_Times_and_the_South_China_Morning_Post

At the very minimum Perennial sources should tell people not to use articles from "Lin Nguyen" who turned out to be a fabricated persona. The SCMP withdrew all articles by this persona. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely anything published after the new national security law should have just as much reliability as The Onion. Articles during the period between the British handover and that law I'm not sure about. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Xinhua (RSP entry) is a better starting point of comparison than The Onion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That RSP entry is far too generous to Xinhua. [24][25]. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I wrote the entry based off the opinions present in the 2 discussions, and I think it is a reasonable reflection of them. If you think it's too generous then that's down to the responders, not me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW The Atlantic here published: "A Newsroom at the Edge of Autocracy" (August 1, 2020). WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

SCMP has been owned by Alibaba Group since 2016, when it closed its non english language editions and subsidiary publications like HK Magazine it also retracted an article criticising Li Zhanshu in 2017, so I don't think that the national security law is going to have a significant impact, as these changes have already been happening to the SCMP since 2016. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The allegations presented in The Atlantic are concerning, particularly the censoring of reporters coverage of the Hong Kong protests by editors to give a strongly pro-goverment slant, and the publication of an interview with Gui Minhai, who was detained by the Chinese government at the time, effectively akin to a forced confession. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Lin Nguyen articles were all opinion pieces; they didn’t affect the SCMP's usual news reporting.
  To my knowledge, the SCMP has been generally regarded as one of the most (if not the most) reliable news outlets in HK. Regarding bias, they've usually been more critical of the mainland Chinese government than friendly towards it, even since 2016. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The statuses in RSN and "Perennial sources" also affect the selection of opinion pieces suitable to quote in articles. In Alec Holowka I brought up an opinion piece from RT on his suicide in Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Death but other editors felt it was not appropriate to refer to it because RT is discouraged for controversial subjects. See: Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Russia_Today_and_The_Post_Millennial WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Does it? Shouldn’t opinion articles and editorials derive their reliability predominantly (if not solely) from the author rather than the publication, per WP:RSEDITORIAL? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @MarkH21: That's a good question for a separate thread of RSN. I couldn't find much on that particular author (Igor Ogorodnev) so all the editors had was the publication itself. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Newspaper of record#cite_note-51 says "The clippings are from the South China Morning Post, the paper of record in Hong Kong". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've encountered the SCMP on a few occasions and just read the Atlantic piece, which I think should be considered a reliable look into the state of the newspaper. The SCMP is clearly a newspaper of record, and in some non-sensitive areas it should certainly be considered generally reliable. There are serious concerns about its ability to report fairly on the Hong Kong protests and on some issues sensitive in China, although I would need to look further into it to determine whether this often manifests as inaccuracies (a problem) or just bias (not so much of a problem per WP:BIASED). Regardless, I'm glad to see this discussion happening, since the SCMP is a very notable omission to the RSP list. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pinging participants from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#South China Morning Post reliability: @Skyring: @-Ni3Xposite: @Ckfasdf: @Feminist: @Slatersteven: @The Drover's Wife: @DreamLinker: @Burrobert: (Adoring nanny is already here) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: do you want me to format a formal RfC? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I would love that. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Also @Buidhe: and @Darouet: from the first discussion WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:USESPS says that "government publications" are considered "self-published" Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Identifying_self-published_sources. Many government agencies in North America publish high quality reports like StatCan, USDA, US State Department etc. In my opinion, StatCan reports have a similar quality to those published by Pew Research Center (considered reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). Both collect their own raw data and have internal experts analyze and interpret it and then publish the reports on their website. Both Pew and StatCan have their own internal mechanisms to ensure accuracy. And given the strong reputation both have, those mechanisms clearly work. So StatCan doesn't seem any more self-published than Pew.

My question is less motivated by a specific example and more by a desire to better understand what it means to be a "self-published" source and how to determine if a government publication should be considered self-published or not.VR _talk 20:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Being self-published does not mean a source is unreliable, but we have to consider the authors and the context in which the report is being used. Some government websites clearly state that they do not ensure their reliability and these should not be used. TFD (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Government sources have always been sort of an exception. For example, WP:GEOLAND states that any populated place that verifiably exists is notable, even if we know absolutely nothing about it other than information provided by the government. In that case it is perfectly acceptable to create an article using only sources created by the same government that willed the populated place into existence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I’m beginning to think it would help to divide SPS into two sub-genres: “individually self-published” (ISPS) and “organizationally self-published” (OSPS).

Either of these can be reliable (or unreliable) depending on who the individual or organization is... but with OSPS there is a greater chance that there was some form of fact checking. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar This is probably a dumb question, but what exactly is the difference between OSPS and a website like Pew Research Center? Pew might have their own employees collect raw data, have internal experts analyze and interpret it, have it edited internally, and then publish the report on their website. That sounds like OSPS to me.VR _talk 12:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would classify it as an OSPS. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar Just to be clear, you would classify Pew as OSPS and reliable? And their reliability would be based on the fact that they're reputable and widely cited for the work they do, or a different reason? I'm trying to determine how we would distinguish reliable OSPS from unreliable OSPS.VR _talk 14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• The answer is, it depends. Like pretty much any other source, it largely depends on whether the authors are subject matter experts, writing within their field, who exercise editorial independence from the agency acting as the publisher. For example, when the US Park Service commissions a survey of a wilderness area, they normally operate in the role of selecting qualified experts, funding their research, and making that information available to the public once complete. They would not normally exercise undue editorial imposition upon the results. So there is often still some division between author and publisher. If we have reason to believe that the Park Service is exercising undue editorial imposition on the...I dunno...current state of protected species within the Sabinoso Wilderness, then we would have reason to believe that there is no such meaningful division and the source could be considered unreliably self-serving and truly self-published. GMG^talk 12:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• There is a proposed revision of what an SPS means in progress, which differentiates between the current model of "author = site owner", to one that is better seen as "author = one that publishes without further action". To that end, this means that some government works will remain SPS, but mostly those being matters of first record - like transcripts of courts, hearings, court filings, etc., things that published with minimal review, and then separately you will have actual non-SPS that underdo review and checks like government reports, court decisions, legislation, and so forth. In either case, these are all still primary documents and should be used with care.
  Additionally, when getting to some of the reports that are published by EPA or the more scientifically-minded organizations, these often are written from universities, national labs, or equivalent organizations for that agency, with the agency adding their name as the issuing agency. Those should not be seen as self-published regardless (and would fit in the proposed scheme), and here would no longer be primary works, though issues of independence could be raised if that's a topic matter. Eg if the topic is about a chemical , such a report discussing its toxicology would be fine, but if the topic was about specific pollution of that chemical in a certain site in the US, such a report might be "tainted" depending. --Masem (t) 14:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I just looked at it. I like Zero0000's definition of SPS, it makes things clearer. I also like FactOrOpinion's examples, they are helpful.VR _talk 17:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, a while back on the WP:USINGSPS talk page, I'd tried to start a discussion, Are government publications often SPSs and should this be addressed on the main page? Ultimately, the answer depends on how "self-published" is defined, and hopefully there will eventually be a consensus about that, and if there are still questions about government publications, we can come back to them. More generally, the text on the USINGSPS page should be updated once there's an agreement on a better way to define SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with User:GreenMeansGo: it depends. A properly functioning government department should be capable of providing reference-quality material, but to be confident of reliability, we need to have insight into the department function. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Dar al-Ifta al Misriyyah a reliable source for Islamic beliefs? (used as a citation in the section above this one).

• Here is their "about": page:[26]
• Here is their Wikipedia page: Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah
• Here is an article about Dar al-Ifta in the NYT:[27]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Gave notification of discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Is_Dar_al-Ifta_a_reliable_source?.VR _talk 22:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• No, this organization functions as a branch of the Egyptian government. There are many different factions of Islam and this only represents one of them. At best, it could be used as a primary source on the beliefs of itself. There are plenty of scholarly sources on Islam and these should be used preferentially. (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for opinions of Sunni Islam. Their reliability stems from them being under the purview of Al-Azhar University, probably the most well-known institution of Sunni Islamic learning. This book says Dar al-Ifta "has throughout the 20th century been a central player in the bargaining over the role of Islam in Egyptian society." Their association with the Egyptian government is a double edged sword. On one hand it means they represent "mainstream" views (and Egypt is a large and moderate Muslim-majority country). On the other hand it means they can't say anything against the government, and I would treat any of their political opinions with caution. I would use them with attribution in most cases.VR _talk 22:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If you're trying to find an organization that represents every single creed of a given religion, you won't find it anywhere. You'll find vastly different interpretations of Islam across the world, as well as many nations harbor differing majority views, even if they're all Sunni. For example - you'll find that the majority strains of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia diverge significantly from those in Egypt, Kazakhstan or Bosnia. Furthermore, many significant religious institutions are affiliated with or at least funded by the government of the nation in which they operate. I don't believe that either of those should be sufficient grounds to discard a source. Instead, it's best to rely on how much they are mentioned in other sources, the history and influence of the institutions and their perceived credibility with regards to how well their opinions are respected by the worshippers in their respective jurisdictions. Goodposts (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, which is why scholarly sources are helpful in distinguishing commonalities and differences between Islamic teachings in different countries and/or other variations. I agree that Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah is reliable for what Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah teaches, but it shouldn't be used for anything other than what Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah teaches (which can be used in any article where WP:DUE, although scholarly sources are preferred). If I were writing an article about Sunni Islam I might start with something like this book. (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  buidhe we might be on the same page (I think). I've been reading this book and it seems Dar al-Ifta is a body of Islamic scholars, most of whom are associated with Al-Azhar University, for issuing opinions on Islamic jurisprudence on contemporary topics. These scholars are rigorously trained in various disciplines of Islamic studies and supervised by their peers. I agree that they are only a reliable source on Islamic jurisprudence (and maybe Islamic theology) and nothing else. For example, I wouldn't use them as a reliable source for history of Egypt. And I would use them with attribution in most cases.VR _talk 14:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think that they would necessarily meet the WP definition of scholarly source because they're unlikely to publish, say, in mediums that are peer-reviewed by people outside the organization. I mean, maybe the Chabad website is reviewed by Chabad Jewish law scholars but it does not necessarily make it a reliable source for Judaism in general. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  The issue with chabad was that they were at the fringes of orthodox Judaism. By contrast, Al-Azhar is the foremost center of Sunni religious learning.VR _talk 22:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  There are about 1.4–1.5 billion Sunni Muslims in the world. The population of Egypt is 98 million. Even if this institute has significant influence beyond Egypt, it hardly speaks for most Sunni Muslims. The purpose of this institute is not to explain what Muslims have believed throughout the world and throughout history, but simply expound the beliefs of a particular school of Islamic thought. Which is why we rely on publications which meet secular academic standards to write about religious topics. (Note that many people of faith publish in secular media, but on the other hand we should rely on independently published sources, rather than Catholic church publications, to tell us about Catholic theology.) (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  Both Dar al-Ifta and Al-Azhar cover all four Sunni schools of thought. And we need to distinguish between "teachings of Islamic scholars" and "views of the Muslim masses". Just like we'd distinguish between "teachings of Catholic church" and "what Catholics actually believe". Dar al-Ifta looks at the "teachings of Islamic scholars" throughout history and is a reliable source for that. They are not a reliable source for the opinions of 1.5 billion Sunnis today - Pew research center is a better source for that. They meet the standards for WP:RS: their scholars are specialists and experts in their field, their work is vetted and supervised by academics from Al-Azhar university, their Islamic opinions are widely cited in academic literature and media. In fact, medical journals, when discussing Islamic views on a medical topic, cite the opinion of Dar al-Ifta: African Journal of Urology[28], BMC Womens Health[29], The Journal of Sexual Medicine[30] and Journal of Medical Ethics[31].VR _talk 05:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, per Buidhe. We should not be using in-universe material, least of all one part of a state apparatus. Use with attribution only, do not use at all for historical information about Islam. GPinkerton (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, The reliability comes from the fact that it belongs to Al-Azhar University, which is the most reputable Islamic institution among Sunni Muslims that exist today. Most Fataws are issued through consultation with a board of senior scholars. The political views are problematic especially in the past three decades. However, fataws with such views are a very marginal compared to the gigantic database of fataws. Also, the website contains a large volume of historical fataws issues by previous Muftis, which are valuable from scholarship perspectives. Very few in Western academia would challenge the reliability of Dar-al-ifta, but several would disagree with some opinions. But is not this the case with any reliable source? Millions of Muslims in Africa, Asia and even in Eruope still use Dar-al-ifta as a main reference for their day-to-day fataws. It will be very ironic if it is labelled by Wikipedia as unreliable. Nawawi676 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The fact that the medical journals VR cited above use it as a source is a strong evidence that it meets our standards for reliability and accuracy.Jushyosaha604 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)