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.

There is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Roy_Moore#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_20_November_2017_-_Removal_of_using_.22far-right.22_to_compartmentalize_what_is_claimed_to_be_his_politics regarding the use of the term "far-right" to describe Roy Moore. I have made what I believe to be reasonable arguments for why such terms should never be used in Wikipedia articles. The user of terms such as far-right or far-left are generally sensationalist and pejorative and serve no useful purpose in describing a BLP other than to bias the reader.

My arguments have been repeatedly met with the retort that RS is RS and it is Wikipedia policy to use RS without question. (I'm editorializing here. For the depth of the arguments, read the thread.) I have argued that even RS can be and often is biased, and that the use of such terms in Wikipedia articles should be avoided, unless an RS is being directly quoted. For example, I wrote One use, is IMO, a violation of Wikiepedia policy. In the fourth paragraph of the summary, this sentence appears. Moore is an advocate of far-right politics. The response to my arguments has been that it is policy to describe individuals as they are described in RS.

I have looked for these policies and not found them. WP:RS states

This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

ISTM that common sense would dictate that to maintain a WP:NPOV "trigger words" should be avoided in articles. Words such as far-right and far-left serve no purpose except to marginalize the person being described. What is the Wikipedia policy with regard to the use of such words in articles? I note that Wikipedia has articles on Far-right politics and Far-left politics that describe the political stances of the various groups. However, I am troubled by the use of those terms to describe WP:BLP when policy dictates using caution in describing them. Txantimedia (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The argument that "such terms should never be used in Wikipedia articles" is not supported by any policy whatsoever and is, frankly, a bizarre notion. As others have apparently noted, use of any term depends on the specific factual circumstances of each case - specifically what is said in reliable sources. If reliable sources consistently describe someone or something as far-left or far-right, we use these terms; where the reliable sources don't, neither do we. That's all there is to it. Neutrality^talk 05:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

As has been explained several times, whether this (or any other) term can be used or not is determined by whether its used by reliable sources. That's it. Volunteer Marek  05:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to provide a link to the edit with which you disagree. TFD (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Far right" is an example of something that cannot be anything but an opinion. As such, it should be attributed to whoever expressed that opinion, to more than one such person if necessary. The exception is that if you find a reliable source saying something like "Joe is frequently described as far-right", you can cite that. However you cannot make your own judgement of when an opinion becomes a fact. Zero^talk 06:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no BLP violation in describing Roy Moore as "far-right"; there are ample sources to support such a claim, and I assume he wouldn't consider it to be insulting or degrading. However, having a wikilink with target far-right may not be correct; he's clearly far-right on the Political spectrum, but that's largely due to Dominion Theology-related views rather than Nazism or fascism-related views. Radical right (United States) may be a better target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I provided a link to the section of the talk page and quoted the questionable statement here. The sentence I'm questioning was part of the original article and was never questioned until now. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Moore&diff=811983686&oldid=1728404

@Volunteer Marek:You have repeatedly stated "it is policy" yet you have never provided any substantiation for your claim. That's all I'm asking for. Show me the beef. Where, in Wikipedia policy, does it state that if RS calls someone a martian, then Wikipedia does? Every time I hear these claims, I immediately think, but what about neutrality? Aren't we supposed to be neutral in edits, especially in the cases of BLP? It's one thing to quote an RS. It's another entirely to write So and so is a far-left politician. The former is using RS. The latter is Wikipedia making a claim. I thought that was supposed to be avoided. I think Zero's response is precisely on point.

@Power~enwiki:Whether Moore considers it an insult or a badge of honor is supposed to be irrelevant on Wikipedia. If I write, in an article, so and so is a far left politician, I am, as an editor, expressing an opinion. It doesn't matter how many RS have also said it. If I write, RS says, "So and so ia a far-left politician", then I, as an editor, am not expressing an opinion. The claim may still not be factual, but it is supported by RS. I do not think this is a distinction without a difference, and apparently Zero agrees with my position. Txantimedia (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

When the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources uses the same terminology to describe someone, it is not necessary to attribute that terminology to any particular source. The canonical example is Richard B. Spencer, who apparently dislikes being called a "white supremacist" and prefers the term "white nationalist." Too bad for him — a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources describes him as a white supremacist, and hence so will Wikipedia. Our articles are, by foundational policy, based on what is published in reliable sources, and those reliable sources say Roy Moore is far-right. Your problem is with the sources, not with Wikipedia, and we cannot allow you to rewrite an article because you dislike what the sources say. "Neutrality" for our purposes exists within the framework of reliable sources; we are required to weigh differing viewpoints based upon their differing prominence and reputation within reliable sources. If it is your opinion that the reliable sources are biased, that is not a problem we as Wikipedians can solve. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"The claim may still not be factual, but it is supported by RS." Um, if the claim isn't factual, then whatever source is stating it is definitionally not a reliable source. We don't use sources that make unsubstantiated salacious claims, especially not in Wikipedia's voice. -- Netoholic @ 10:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Simply citing sourcing policy, and saying we should just go ahead and use the label if most/all sources supposedly do, although technically correct, as so often is slightly missing the point. This is not about facts: it is about a label or term that is inherently subjective and often used polemically in sources, especially media sources. It is also used by different sources to mean or suggest different things, ranging from extreme conservatism (possibly relevant for Moore) to outright fascism (which is more contentious in this case). You can't rely on sources meaning the first to make a WP page imply the second. Beyond that, how do you verify "all" or "most"? Plenty of sources no doubt do not refer to him as "far right" – is that because they don't view him as such, or because they just happened not to use the description at that point? You still have to exercise a bit of judgment. Even if the description is genuinely widespread, I'd always qualify, explain and/or attribute to some extent unless we are talking about actual fascism. N-HH talk/edits 17:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Far right" is not equivalent to "fascism," though. If he espoused fascist views, we'd use the term "fascism." He doesn't, but as our article discusses, his views put him on the far right extreme of American politics - he opposes any civil rights for LGBT people and supports recriminalizing same-sex sexual relationships, thinks Muslims should be prohibited from serving in Congress, believes Christian theology should control secular governance, etc. These are, by any objective definition, far-right fringe political positions and that's why sources say what they do. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I'm not questioning whether or not Moore is called far-right. I'm questioning whether writing that as a statement, rather than a quote from RS, is truly following Wikipedia policy. ISTM a weak excuse to say, well, the RS said it, so it's OK for Wikipedia to say it. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Calling someone far-right or far-left (or any other political pejorative) is not being neutral. As Netoholic points out, making such a blanket statement gets you in real trouble when the RS is not being factual. And as User talk:N-HH points out, and policy clearly states, editors are supposed to exercise judgment when using sources in order to present material in as neutral a way as possible.

Let's examine the statement that I consider is a violation of policy. Moore is an advocate of far-right politics. According to Wikipedia, Far-right politics

The term is often associated with Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views.[5] These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the nation, state[6] or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[7]

Can it be proven that these attributes apply to Moore? If not, then the statement is not based on fact and is certainly not neutral. That is my argument. Txantimedia (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say far right=fascism, although as noted, it very much can mean that. Indeed, that's exactly my point in part: it can mean different things, depending on who's using it. Also, separately from that point, in my experience on WP, when people say "we must use this label because all sources do", the reality is often that some do and some don't. And when people then resort to saying instead simply "well, by definition that's what this means", they're often on even weaker ground. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not about what can be "proven," though. That's not how Wikipedia works - Wikipedia editors are not empowered to "investigate" statements and determine factual proof. Rather, we are charged with writing articles based upon reliable sources. As cited, mainstream reliable sources widely refer to Moore as someone who espouses and supports far-right political policies.

But if you're asking me whether there's "proof" that Moore has extreme reactionary views [that] can lead to oppression against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the nation, that is trivial to demonstrate: Moore is supportive of laws to make homosexuality illegal, and has argued that same-sex parents are unfit to raise children, that openly gay individuals should not be allowed to serve in government and that the legitimization of various forms of "sodomy" may cause suffering in the United States and has said "Homosexual behavior is a ground for divorce, an act of sexual misconduct punishable as a crime in Alabama, a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That is literally calling for legalized systematic and governmental oppression and violence against LGBT people because they're inferior and a threat to the nation. QED. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have attempted to boldly resolve this by creating a CONCEPTDAB prototype at Far-right (Special:Permalink/812052066). Discussion is necessary, and I would not be surprised (and do not object to) a revert. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me - I think that's a fine solution. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me either. While you're at it, perhaps you could resolve the following. It is my opinion that consistency is important. If you go to Far-right politics in the United States it redirects to Far-right politics#United States, but if you go to Far-left politics in the United States it redirects to American Left. ISTM both ought to redirect to the same (appropriate page). I.e. both redirect to far-side#United States or American left and American right. But American right redirects to Conservatism in the United States. This inconsistency can be confusing to readers and raise questions regarding bias. Txantimedia (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality has made what I feel to be a valid objection. I'm starting a more wide-ranging discussion at WT:WikiProject Politics. As far as "reliable sources" go, due to the contemporaneous nature of our coverage, we will by necessity be using largely primary sources. These sources generally are not peer-reviewed coverage of political figures of the early 21st century. Roy Moore's biography has not yet been written. The word "far-right" can have multiple meanings to multiple people. As a result, a general bias towards caution is necessary. That said, I don't see any specific concerns as to whether any specific source is or is not reliable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Precisely - the prescription is to avoid controversial and easily misunderstood labels like "far-right", especially in Wikipedia's voice, and instead focus on describing his positions (statements he has made are easily verifiable). The problem with labels is that there are many sources that do not try to label people, doing as I suggest and simply let their positions speak for themselves, and many sources that will put a label on someone and stop there. Its so easy to find several sources that use a label you wish to impose on someone because the word is so visible, while ignoring other sources which don't apply a label because they are an unseen factor. If a label is deemed controversial and isn't applied very broadly by the sources, then the default position of Wikipedia should be to source that label to those that use it ("SPLC has described <person> as "far-right", etc), not just include it in WP's voice using a potentially misleading wikilink. -- Netoholic @ 21:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That would lead to the absurd decision to not call Richard B. Spencer a white supremacist, when that literally is what he is. You have claimed that calling Moore's political positions "far-right" is "controversial" — do you have any reliable sources which support that claim? In other words, are there any reliable sources which argue that Moore's positions are not "far-right"? If not, then there is nothing "controversial" about it at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The level of conviction in the way you speak is an example of something completely opposed to WP:NPOV and makes you someone who should be ineligible to make judgments about articles in that respect. No person should ever speak with such unquestioned certainty. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be describing something other than our NPOV policy, which states that our goal is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is intentionally limited to "significant views that have been published by reliable sources," not to "any possible argument from any person." An array of indisputable reliable sources have been provided which define Moore's political viewpoints as "far right." Unless there are "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" that Moore's political positions are not "far right," then NPOV has been satisfied in this case. You purport that a "controversy" exists over whether or not it is true, but unless this "controversy" can be documented in reliable sources, for Wikipedia's purposes it cannot be said to exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Describing someone with views like that as 'far-right' is completely rational, the opposite would be absurd.Romani Muslim Traveller (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't describing them that way. It's whether that description should come directly from Wikipedia or from a source. Whenever great controversy is involved, as it is here, great caution should be used to maintain a NPOV. You don't do that by making declarative statements in an article. You do it by quoting third-party sources who state it. Txantimedia (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Since this is a BLP, wouldn't it be safer to avoid using the term even if it's sufficiently and reliably sourced? WP:Blp provides us with: "Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced.", and "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version.[emphasis added] Huggums537 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

That a divorce is "messy" or not is not really a factual statement - what does "messy" mean, anyway? That Moore's political viewpoints are far-right (he believes gay people should be imprisoned and Muslims should be disqualified from holding public office) is a factual statement and is apparently unopposed by any reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

So labeling someone far-right is factual? Based on who's facts? But you've strayed from the issue. The issue is, should Wikipedia use controversial terms to describe BLP rather than use quotes from RS to do so? I think, in order to maintain neutrality, editors must studiously avoid using controversial terms and let the RS do that for them. And I believe I am correctly stating the policy of neutrality.

It doesn't matter, though, because this has been kicked up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics for a decision. So I won't fill up this talk page with more argument. Txantimedia (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, he’s clearly far-right. But, that’s irrelevant. What matters is what RS say, not what you or I think is “truth”. Your claim that this is controversial requires cites. Why are you claiming this is controversial? What RS say he isn’t far-right. Has he even denied this? Further, this is RSN. What source are you claiming we shouldn’t use. If you have no argument against a particular source, this should be closed on technical grounds. O3000 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• To put it bluntly, a wikiproject is unlikely to even attempt to over-rule a discussion on RSN based on reliability of sources. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I have yet to see any independent reliable sources presented that describe him as anything other than right-wing or far-right. Or even any independent reliable sources that say the description of him as far-right is in error. Given he publically supports homophobic, racist and un-American political views, that may be why such sources are hard to find. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Clearly "far-right" is a politically loaded term, that may or may not be applicable. In principle I have no problem applying it when it truly applies but I have seem several cases where left-leaning media will use it to denigrate a politician on the right of the political spectrum, and may just have a hawkish position or may be standing on a strong anti-immigration platform, neither of which makes somebody inherently far-right. I think for the label to be used in a factual sense on Wikipedia it should be carried by mainstream outlets on the right of the political spectrum too: for example, if Fox News or the UK's Telegraph describe a politician as far-right then that probably carries more weight than CNN or The Guardian using the term. The same goes for politicans like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn: I have seen right-wing outlets describe them as "communist", but they are clearly not. If CNN and The Guardian described them as such it would similarly carry more weight. This is really all about getting the balance right, rather than simply being able to source something. Betty Logan (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Only in death, your "amazingly stupid" pejorative remark below shows an utter disregard for WP:5P4 which includes the policies of WP:CONDUCT, specifically, WP:CIVIL and is a demonstration of your lack of judgement considering you chose to perform this violation on a talk page which has already been discussing possible pejorative BLP violations no less! The audacity is incredible. All this from someone who clearly has the ability to present perfectly logical and rational arguments. Honestly, I would expect better judgement from anyone with your degree of intelligence. It's too bad you had to go and do that because your arguments make very good sense, but you lose a certain amount of credibility when your judgement comes into question like this. However, I'm glad you have made the mistake because now maybe you have an opportunity to reflect on the importance of being more sensitive to other policies like BLP and CIVIL. Many highly intelligent people tend to be a little arrogant in thinking that just because they may be right about the technical aspects it somehow exonerates them from the social rules. Be grateful people are so forgiving and the worst you will hear about this is from me, and I'm not afraid to speak up for any perceived injustice I may witness. Please be more considerate and exercise better judgement in the future. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You pinged me for this? I fear you have confused me with someone who gives a damn. AN is thataway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did ping you for this because I think it's very important to have good relations and a good reputation. Thanks for the offer of AN, but I'll respectfully decline. Dispute is the least of my intentions as my desire was to foster civility and respect when I pointed out your error in judgement. Besides, I think that if we can just be reasonable with each other, then it will promote civility far better than AN could any day of the week. So, I fear you have confused me with someone who could care less about AN. ;) Huggums537 (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, consider this, if the counter arguments really are that much inferior to yours, then shouldn't your superior arguments be able to stand on their own to prove it without the added emphasis of how "stupid" the counter arguments are? Adding pejorative comments to arguments is viewed by many as a cheap way for puffing up arguments with nothing more than hubris. Your arguments are perfectly sensible on their own. Why should you belittle yourself and your arguments in such a way? You seem to be worthy of far better accomplishments. You're too valuable an editor to be dragged to AN over a temporary lapse in judgement when we all make mistakes and I have no desire for any punitive damages levied against you for that. I just wanted you to be aware that somebody noticed, and possibly give you some insightful reasons why you might want to "gives a damn". Huggums537 (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That's an amazingly stupid comment. 'Fox news is more reliable for who is far right than CNN or The Guardian'. And the basis of this is because they are right-wing media? That violates so many guidelines I don't know where to start.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you are fooling anyone. We have a duty to uphold WP:NPOV and if only left-leaning media are labelling somebody "far right" then it is problematic if we incorporate innate left-wing media bias into Wikipedia's voice. You say "I have yet to see any independent reliable sources presented that describe him as anything other than right-wing or far-right"; if that is the case why are you arguing to label him "far right" as opposed to "right wing"? Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have even read WP:NPOV, because if you had, you would have read the part labeled 'bias in sources'. "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." While the weight of opinion in reliable sources describes them as far-right, so do we. Your version where we give greater weight to sources that *share* the same bias as the subject is counter to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and a host of other policies/guidelines. It would result in us giving greater weight to fringe/extreme publications because they support fringe/extreme views. Its not even close to how we weight or judge reliable sourcing. I am not arguing we call him far-right, I am arguing if reliable sources as a body describe him as far-right, so should his article per our policies. Your opinion appears to be based on a non-existant policy that is opposite to how we do things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I clearly stated that this is about balance. If these epithets are only coming from one side of the political spectrum then they are not being neutrally applied. That is my point and I think it is clear to anyone who approaches my comment in good faith. Betty Logan (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am approaching your comment in good faith. I good faith believe you have no idea what you are talking about. You may want to go read WP:FALSEBALANCE (also part of NPOV) as well. Your point is counter to policy and NPOV explicitly allows bias with regards to neutrally writing an article. We write articles with regard to the reliably sourced view on the subject. Being neutral does not mean balancing by removing one viewpoint because the weight of opinion is unbalanced in favour of it. That is injecting your own POV into editing and what NPOV is meant to prevent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you consider the Alabama Media Group left-wing?[3]. Do we consider the BBC a biased source?[4] O3000 (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The BBC is certainly not right-wing is it, so where is the neutrality in all of this? Where are the right-wing media outlets proclaiming Moore as "far right"? If you cannot produce them then essentially you are ignoring one side of the political spectrum. Where is the right-wing media support for the term "far right"? If there is some then fine, I can get on board with that, but it looks to me you are WP:CHERRYPICKING the center-left media outlets for terms that are consistent with a certain political perspective. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah so I was right, you don't understand NPOV. I have explained, as have others above, why you are wrong. It is not required for sources to share the bias of the subject. Also actually read the pages you cite, Cherrypicking is where you choose from available sources in order to insert your POV. If there are sources that described him as far-left, and sources that described him as far-right, and we only chose the far-right ones, that would be cherrypicking. Please provide evidence in the form of reliable independent sources that his position on the political spectrum is incorrect or subject to debate. Otherwise we are done here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I'm sorry, but Only in death is correct even while being rude. You misunderstand NPOV. If only right-wing sources were allowed to be used to verify the moniker--I can't even finish that sentence since it's ridiculous. IF indeed "right-wing" is pejorative etc., then you're letting the fox guard the hen house. No one would be called right-wing, even though it is clearly NOT just some pejorative term but describes the realities of political viewpoints. Do you think...OK, a woman has the right to choose an abortion? You're probably left-wingish. Do you favor a much lower tax on investment income than on a regular paycheck? You're probably right-wingish. Anyway, this whole joint starts with Txantimedia's "The user of terms such as far-right or far-left are generally sensationalist and pejorative and serve no useful purpose in describing a BLP other than to bias the reader." That's close to what you seem to arguing, and it's wrong. Txantimedia (ah, a nice neutral name!--if you're "anti-media", maybe you shouldn't be on a website where WP:V is a pillar), you are completely wrong. Maybe they're "generally" used in the way you describe on the websites and in the memes you read, but I assure you that they are real terms. Have you read, for instance, Oswald, Andrew J.; Powdthavee, Nattavudh (2010). "Daughters and Left-Wing Voting". The Review of Economics and Statistics. 92 (2): 213–227.? Fascinating stuff! And peer-reviewed. Why are right-wingers so worried about being called right-wingers? BTW, this is not to say that I think the term should be dropped in the first sentence of the article on judge Moore. There's a couple of other terms that I can think of that are more appropriate--terms having to do with his religious stance/judicial philosophy, for instance, which jive with the right, but are themselves more pointed for his case. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Only in death has been twisting my words all through this discussion so I am not surprised that is what you think I have said, so it would be helpful to recap what I actually said: "I think for the label to be used in a factual sense on Wikipedia it should be carried by mainstream outlets on the right of the political spectrum too." The operative word there is "too". At no point do I say that we should "only" use labels used by right-wing sources. The bottom line is that if we only use terminology that is confined to the left-wing or even centrist media and does not have consensus from the right-wing media then you are incorporating left-wing bias into Wikipedia's voice. The opposite is also true for left-wing positions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not twisted your words at all. You made it perfectly clear that you don't accept a label of political position based on the bias of the source. The 'bottom line' is that that is not how NPOV works. Its been explained to you multiple times now in plain English. At this point its becoming a CIR issue. If the majority of reliable sources describe a subject as something, so does Wikipedia. Sources are not required to be unbiased. Nor are we required to incorporate fringe views into the encyclopedia. And any source (not that you have, despite being asked to, provided a source) that describes this particular subject as anything other than far-right or right-wing would be a fringe view, because the man is politically so far to the right only card-carrying Nazis are further over. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

How odd to see these really poststructuralist, post-truth positions taken up by some editors here--as if there is always bias, and there is nothing objective about anything anymore. I never thought I'd be this conservative. Sorry Betty, but this is not freshman comp where you get to argue pro or con but you must incorporate both positions. It's always about quality of argument and quality of sourcing. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies suggestion that, "There's a couple of other terms that I can think of that are more appropriate--terms having to do with his religious stance/judicial philosophy, for instance, which jive with the right, but are themselves more pointed for his case." However, I find it odd that it's being argued, "this is not freshman comp where you get to argue pro or con but you must incorporate both positions." yet, a virtual pro vs. con argument is being made against Betty while the sensible part of her position isn't being incorporated at all. Weird. Huggums537 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Obviously there are degrees of right-wing and left-wing political views, and these need to be specified in articles on people (whether living or not), groups, and ideas, as noted in multiple reliable sources. There's not only centrist right (as exemplified, say, by the National Review, for instance), there's far right, and beyond that "alt-right"; any of these terms are valid (and important) descriptors in any given article where they apply. There's also libertarianism, and half a dozen other kinds of right-wing viewpoint. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Far-right and alt-right are easily negative value laden labels. Given far-right is associated with Nazies, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist and terrorist and alt-right is associated with white nationalism, Islamophobia, misogyny, antisemitic, homophobia and neo-Nazism. If used for a BLP, strong sources and in-line attribution is required at a minimum. PackMecEng (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, a goodly part of the American electorate consider the left supporters of atheism, communism, sexual perversion, baby-killing/genocide, as well as being anti-police and anti-family values. That doesn’t stop us from using the word. In any case, we have strong sources. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:LABEL, I am not trying to stop the use of the word. I wrote it needs strong sources and in-line attribution. Which is required for such a contentious label. In any case, I am just asking that policy be followed and wikipedia does not apply pov labels in it's own voice. PackMecEng (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This is precisely what I've been arguing. The term should be used as a quote from RS, NOT as a statement by Wikipedia. But the chorus of RS, RS, RS overwhelms the discussion, and all sorts of nefarious motives are assigned to my attempt to try to get policy to be followed. It is clear to me that the Roy Moore articles are populated by people with very strong opinions, and they do not want to hear about NPOV, N or BLP. I'm done arguing about it. Txantimedia (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As a neutral encyclopedia, we should be amoral. Obvious things like confirmed murder or genocide crosses all reasonable moral and ethnic boundaries, we can't pretend that isn't bad, but as soon as you classify things like atheism and communism as values we should write to as against "American values", that's a problem. We are a global work, and should not be subscribing to what set of values is right or wrong. (the core of WP:NOT#CENSORED. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t say anything is wrong or un-American with atheism or communism. I’m an atheist. I’m saying that politicians are generally placed in categories by RS and by Wikipedia. Whether these labels are considered good or bad is up to individuals. We do not assign labels as pejoratives. We document categories used by RS. O3000 (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

But are RSes using these terms as categories in an objective manner or as pejoratives in a subjective manner? Context is very much important here, as demanded by NPOV. We're burying our heads in the sand by asserting that because these RSes like WaPost call people far-right that we should follow blindly and assume that factual, but that's missing the bigger picture of how the media today is reacting to the current political picture, hence why suddenly alt-right and far-right are these big nebulous terms that have only just come into popularity. Nearly every source that I see that labels someone or some group as alt-right or far-right has shown themselves to be dependent in the bigger picture, trying to justify more left-leaning "pro-Amercian" values, making their usage of the terms questionably subjective. (Most of the Moore stuff, here for example, is the fact the media is heightening the charges. They are not just reporting, they are trying to sway opinion, making them fully involved and thus dependent). And if we rely on those sources for "factual" information, we lose our amorality and neutrality if we reiterate their claims in a factual voice. It's 100% acceptable to make a sourced claim with in-line attribution based on this, that's staying within RS and NPOV/UNDUE, and we don't need to include other voices (outside of Moore's own statements) from unreliable sources to push a false balance. We can still discuss that sources uses these labels to categorize persons. It's just that when we remain blind to the issues of the media today, and state label-calling in a factual voice just because we happen to have a lot of current sources that do that, we violate NPOV and, when discussing persons, BLP.

In the future, when more distant-from-the-event sources that are clearly independent can assess the issue after several years have passed, then we can use those future sources to catalog people (eg, someone like David Duke being a white supremacist from his activities years ago). But when we're doing in the short term, particularly with the conditions of the political and media worlds in the US right now, we're not following WP:RECENTISM when we assume these labels as facts.

Core of all this is that nothing in RS demands that we assume an RS is 100% factual and objective at all times. BLP and NPOV policies allow for questioning if an RS is really reporting objectively or subjectively, and consider thus how to include that material. The only forcing factor from RS policy is that any contentious material must be sourced to an RS, but even to that, that doesn't make the contentious material factual. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I understand your concern. I have argued along the same lines about describing Trump vs. Nixon in psychological terms. We are on more solid ground with Nixon as much time has passed and his life and time in office have been examined in great detail by academia. With Trump, we cannot use psychological terms or indulge in motivations without the benefit of time. But, I don’t think broad political categories based on stated positions and past actions is so fraught with danger. We aren’t here to divine the “truth”. We strive for verifiability. We use RS toward that end. I don’t mean to be critical, but it ‘’sounds’’ like you are saying we should use RS unless we don’t like what they say. We do get to determine whether a source is RS depending on context. But, if we say it’s OK in the political context in one case; but not in another because we don’t like what they say, we’re entering slippery slope territory. In any case, we get to draw from multiple sources.

Now looking specifically at Roy Moore, we do have multiple sources that use the term far-right. But, more importantly, I don’t think that we have sources that say this is a mischaracterization. Nor do we have any disavowal from the person himself. So, I don’t see how this categorization is contentious in this case. I don’t see people outside of Wikipedia debating this categorization. And I don’t know that he or his supporters consider this a pejorative. It’s not like the terms cult, racist, pervert, terrorist that WP:LABEL warns us about. (And on a purely logical level, how do you categorize someone removed from a high court twice for putting his religious beliefs above federal court rulings and the Constitution?)

Which is to say, I don’t see the problem with this sourced political categorization. Political categorizations are common in WP BLPs. O3000 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t mean to be critical, but it ‘’sounds’’ like you are saying we should use RS unless we don’t like what they say. No, that's not it. NPOV/UNDUE requires us to include a label that is oft-repeated in RSes, even if we don't think it really applies. We can't change the fact RSes have used the term. But we are not required to assume that the RSes are using that term in an objective manner, particularly this close to the events that are leading RSes to using these terms. We have to include what the RSes say, but we should clearly attribute it as their claim. Assuming we have a set of highly reliable RSes like NYTimes, WaPost, etc. that claim Moore is far-right that are present in-line, then the statement "Moore is a far-right supporter" is not acceptable, but "Moore is considered to be a far-right supporter." is completely fine to include.

The problem right now is what you get in the second paragraph But, more importantly, I don’t think that we have sources that say this is a mischaracterization. Nor do we have any disavowal from the person himself. So, I don’t see how this categorization is contentious in this case. This is probably the point where there is the most contention, is that, do we as editors have the right to question what RSes say under policy? Policies like NPOV (specifically YESPOV) BLP, and even RS suggest we do - if we recognize a claim is contentious, even if no RS exists to contest the claim, we are still able to present it as contentious. We can't deny the claim but we aren't required to accept it as a fact if we feel there's problems behind it due to any external issues that are not documented. In the case of alt-right/far-right, and the political and media climate today (rather than decades down the road as you exampled with Nixon), we should be extremely skeptical of such claims. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot (a worrying amount) of editors insist that because no one is contesting a contentious label in the RSes, then nothing else exists beyond what the RSes say, and thus we must take it as fact. We're not an academic ivory tower or a walled garden here. To be neutral we have to understand a story from a 60,000ft level and while we can't include claims and facts outside the RSes, we can be aware where there may be problems with those RSes, and policy instructs us to write cautiously/conservatively rather that blindly following that. (This is essentially what we do when we deem sources as RSes, is evaluate things that are not necessarily documented, but instead using our judgement as editors). --MASEM (t) 17:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don’t think RS are using this term because of anything recent. Moore’s decades of extreme statements and actions are well documented. WaPo and the AP are not known for carelessly throwing around terms like this. I’m also not comfortable with WP declaring something contentious without any RS. You are quite right that we don’t occupy an ivory tower – where we would be allowed to pontificate on our own opinions. The paragraph that begins Moore is an advocate of far-right politics includes a rather large number of cites. I don’t think the editors have been incautious. OTOH, I don’t see a large problem in adding the word considered to the sentence. (Those that added the paragraph may disagree.) O3000 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not so much declaring something is contentious, but just recognizing that it is contentious as editors on WP, and simply to write with caution in presenting claims that can be seen as contentious. "Moore is considered a far-right supporter" does not say the label as applied to Moore is or isn't contentious, simply that "far-right" is still a subjective term, and very likely pejorative, and we're avoid stating in absolute terms here due to the current political/media climate, RECENTISM, and BLP policies. Literally, most of the issues with things like Moore with respect to RS, BLP, NPOV and the like can all be fixed by just adding "is considered as" to take a claim out of WP's mouth and putting it to the sources that make that claim. (Separately: I disagree about the WaPo assessmetn: WaPo has been showing its opinionated reporting of late, since they have been one of those papers detracted by Trump frequently, and have lead some of these investigative reports into Trump, the GOP, and alt/far-right. Their style has definitely changed over the last 5 years. On the other hand, on the AP article (this one, I think is the one in question) the only place it uses "far-right" is the headline, and we have clearly identified that headlines are not written by the editorial staff and should not be considered a "reliable" source. The rest of that article, outside of calling Moore a "firebrand", seems to avoid labels in its language (using quotes from others to make those).) --MASEM (t) 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I'm OK with considered. Of course I only speak for myself. Pleasure doing business with you. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with it too. Seems very reasonable to me. Huggums537 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• All of this is why attribution is so critical when it comes to applying labels. The reader needs to know not only WHICH labels are applied to someone, but WHO is applying those labels (and who isn’t). Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• There are many terms that offer no further understanding of the subject. A famous Reagan quote when negotiating a budget was "he's so far-left that he left the table." These terms are often used to associate various living people in some way that cannot be proven and provide associative value judgements that cannot be made through objective measures. "Right" or "left" is subjective enough. Try to get MSNBC or Bill Clinton or U.S. Democrats labeled as left-wing, let alone far-left (is Bernie Sanders far-left or even left-wing - not in Wikipedia BLP?) , and problem becomes obvious. Heck, you'd get skewered for calling Nancy Pelosi a Democrat Party Member (try it: change infobox from Democratic to Democrat Party). --DHeyward (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Heck, you'd get skewered for calling Nancy Pelosi a Democrat Party Member (try it: change infobox from Democratic to Democrat Party). As well you should. There is no such party. Organizations get to name themselves. Why would you even think of trying to rename a party with the name the opposing party calls them? O3000 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, now you get it! I wouldn't try that because you are right that opponents shouldn't get to label people. "Far-right" and "far-left" are terms and labels used by their opponents, not the people themselves. We are rather generous with terms like "progressive" and "centrist" and that is fine. Trying to cubby hole people using the language of their opponents is not NPOV. --20:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I don’t get it. You are talking about renaming an incorporated organization in an infobox. That’s just a plain falsehood. We’re not going to put Cocaine-Cola in the Coca-Cola article either. Why would any editor consider that for a second? And you seem to be stating that anyone that uses the term far-right or far-left is an opponent. Why don’t we just use RS? O3000 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What reliable sources would you choose for subjective labels? By definition it's a subjective first-person opinion of the source. In addition, it's extremely difficult to apply comparative labels. If one source says conservative, another right wing, another says alt-right and a fourth says far-right, there is no way to say what consensus is or whether they agree or disagree with each other regarding labels. It's not hard to find reliable sources that say Bernie Sanders is left wing or even far-left but our article correctly refrains from these non-descriptive, cubby-hole labels. Keith Olbermann announced his retirement from political commentary. Read his lead. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a thought. Let’s start a new noticeboard to discuss the reliability of specific sources for specific situations. We could call it RSN. This overly-long discussion should be closed and reopened, if anyone cares, with a proper question. O3000 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a better thought, let's just stop adding value-less terms to BLPs that only offer red meat to political wonk editors that are counting coup on politicians they support or oppose. These labels don't describe any affiliation or policy position and offer nothing to the reader. Keep the labels to "member of X" or "supports position Y" and the describe the orgs abd positions outside the BLP. Tagging with valueless labels just contributes to the Idiocracy--DHeyward (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make a lot of sense. The bottom line is that Moore's political positions occupy the far right end of the relevant political spectrum. That's an important aspect of his biography, and if the reader doesn't come away with that information, then we've failed to write an accurate, informative biography. Sure, we could simply describe Moore's positions (and we do): he believes that homosexuality should be criminalized, that Muslims should be barred from holding elected office because of their religion, and so on. But a reader from another country, another culture, or another time might legitimately wonder whether those sorts of beliefs were commonplace or mainstream among American politicians in 2017. By describing Moore's positions as "far-right", we are providing necessary context for such readers. That's hardly "valueless". MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I do agree on this point, to some degree. There are more than enough RSes that to omit "far right" from Moore's article would be improper, and the term does provide context to how those self-stated positions align in the current political spectrum to those not familiar with American politics. But I still stress that assigning all these positions as far right (or broadly for any political position, including more centralist positions) is a subjective determination by the media, and thus we should make sure to say with some type of in-line attribution rather than in wiki-voice factual. We're not losing the "far-right" term, just presenting it as the subjective claim that it is. --MASEM (t) 00:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

But what long-lasting comparative value does it really have and how are the terms being used? Bernie Sanders and Keith Olbermann don't and won't have "left" or "far-left" with the same arguments used against including it for Moore and others. The context is ever changing but because it's an opponents pejorative, all current and running republicans are labeled "far-right." It wasn't that long ago that Reagan was far-right, Bush was far-right, Palin was far-right, McCain was far-right and now Trump is far-right. With a straight face people label paleo-con, neo-con, TEA party and anyone else currently running as right or far-right. Moore's political positions and affiliations are very notable but the label is very transitory. If its only context is American politics, then using a term that lumps him and others with German Nazis is very much a false light BLP violation. If he's anti-Semitic, then there should be sources that say so, rather than deceitfully lumping him in with murderous anti-Semites. the proper way to handle it is to describe how his position relates to current politics. For example, NAFTA was right-wing in the 1990's and supported by right-wing politicians. It was/is one of the reasons Clinton was described as a centrist or "third way". Now, NAFTA is opposed by paleo-con Republicans. It is rather ridiculous to simplify protectionist/free trade with left and right. It's obvious that party affiliation is what drives others to apply these useless labels and it's silly to say the far-right politicians drove NAFTA in the 1990's and the far-right politicians opposes NAFTA in the 2010's. Rather than identifying the proper ideologies around job protection and unions, we blindly apply a pejorative label thay describes the relationship between the source author and their view of the politician. The Sanders and Olbermann articles get it right and also demonstrate that the labels are unnecessary, contentious and arbitrary. Bernie does just fine without the left-wing label. I've yet to hear why we need "left-wing" to properly categorize him in American politics and the article is waiting for that argument as well. --DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This one is really simple. If numerous reliable sources describe Moore as "far-right", then it is appropriate to do so in Wikipedia's voice. That's Wikipedia 101, so I can only assume that either we've lost a critical mass of clue, or people are willfully looking for ways around site policy in this instance for their own reasons. (Similarly, if numerous reliable sources described Bill Clinton as "far-left", then it would appropriate to use that term in his biography—the sauce-for-the-goose arguments seem pretty ignorant).

As a reminder, this noticeboard is meant to discuss sourcing questions. The discussion should start with a presentation of sources describing Moore as "far-right", which editors could then analyze to determine whether they are sufficient to support the descriptor. This isn't really the venue for half-baked political theorizing.

I also want to specifically call out Masem's comments above, which are very concerning. Here, he writes that we can selectively choose to disregard reliable sources if we personally feel that they're unfair to specific political groups. He goes on to make a no-true-Scotsman argument, in which any reliable source which uses the term "far-right" forfeits its reliability by doing so. (Maybe more of a Catch-22, now that I think about it, but equally fallacious). These views are so diametrically at odds with fundamental Wikipedia policy, and they need to be pushed back against, especially when they're expounded in a bludegony, wall-of-text manner. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this is not anywhere in any policy, it's not "Wikipedia 101". If numerous reliable sources describe Moore as "far-right", then we have to recognize this as something to include and can't ignore it per UNDUE (I never said we can disregard such sources). But no policy requires us to accept what reliable sources print as objective fact, that's the key point here. We are fully capable as editors to review the nature of RS articles on a case-by-case basis if needed, determine the climate around that article, and make an assessment if the article is statement something as fact or is opining, even if the source presents it as fact (that's WP:YESPOV). Using labels, particularly relatively new, nebulous ones like "far-right" where there are no objective bounds or historical guidance to determine what fits within it, is by default an opinion. That's why they're labels. Does it mean the RS as a whole is forfeit? Of course not, it just means we state that as a claim with in-line attributions, and not as a fact in WP's voice. That's how we stay impartial and neutral. We're not countering their point, we're not demanding that there be a false balance, we just are staying out of any controversy by documenting it, and using attributed claims rather than asserting these as facts in WP's voice hits all of the core policies WP is built on.

I also never said the entire article that might use a "far-right" label becomes unreliable; it's simply that specific point that should be treated as opinion. That several articles on Moore that are from RSes that call him "far-right" but go on to document the accusations that he has come under of late are still perfectly fine sources to source those accusations factually - the existence of those accusations aren't opinion statements, nor involve any labels, and we can treat those are facts. But when labels and other statements that are normally ascribed as opinions start appearing, we need to be cautious around those specific statements to be impartial and neutral. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You keep using the word "impartial" in a way that seems back-asswards. You are suggesting that we treat some things in a reliable source as fact, and others as opinion, based primarily on your personal perception of the the American political and media landscapes. That is not "impartiality". That is you putting your thumb on the scale, because you think that reliable sources are unfairly biased against the extreme right. (You have made this same argument before, in an effort to prevent Wikipedia from describing a white supremacist as a "white supremacist", and it was just as off-putting back then). To say that Moore's views are extremist even within the spectrum of modern American conservatism is not really "opinion"; it's a well-supported consensus. But regardless, this discussion went off the rails almost immediately and should be either abandoned, or rebooted with reference to actual, specific reliable sources, as it says in the motherloving page header. Again, Wikipedia 101. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The thumb is already on the scale when the determination of a "reliable source" is made through the same process. We have no objective standard for determining reliable sources and we certainly don't require a majority of sources to call another media company "unreliable" before we jettison them. If the requirement for using "far-right" is reliable sources and the requirement to be a reliable source is that they use the label "far-right," the problem becomes obvious. There is always a subjective element and analysis that is applied in the process. In cases where descriptors can't be held to a fact-checking standard, the precautionary principle applies especially to BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

RS isn't the only lecture taught in Wikipedia 101. We also have BLP on Wed. and NPOV is on Tue. and Thur. Huggums537 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia worked as imagined, we wouldn't need a separate BLP policy. But it didn't, it won't and it doesn't. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clear up any possible misunderstandings, my comment was in response to MastCell's funny usage of the term "Wikipedia 101", not DHeyward's reply. I apologize for not providing more clarity. Huggums537 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh. I've given up on the WP:LABEL front on this site. It's inconsistently applied, and usually ideology driven. Until there is some actual standard to apply our BLP's are just going to be garbage. Though I suppose that's SNAFU. Arkon (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity.... can anyone find a reliable media source that labels a US politician as being “center right” (or some other similar term containing “right”)? Or do they only discuss the “right” in terms of being “alt” or “far”? Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What do you read? RS only refer to a very small percentage of American politicians as far-right or alt-right. Centre-right is more often used in European politics. And that’s probably most often used to describe coalitions, not individuals, as that’s how parliamentary systems work. Most often, American politicians are merely labeled by party or liberal or conservative or on the right or left. Often politicians are described as conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. O3000 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And even then, "right" and "left" are typically not labels since they do represent which side of a central position one sits (in the US, aligning with the two major political parties). Its when you add "far" or "alt" to try to describe how far off from center that it becomes a labeling problem, since that's a subjective measurement of that distance. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so now we can't say anything beyond "right" and "left"? That's absurd. All of these descriptors are subjective to some degree: there is, after all, no magic, univeral tool/scale for placing someone on the political spectrum, and even when you're just separating "right" and "left" the same kinds of judgements are being made. Who decides where the "center" is, you? No - you look at what RS say about people's position to figure out how to describe them. And when there is broad agreement among RS that someone is not just "right" but "far right," then it is appropriate (and important) for us to describe people's views in the same way that RS do. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In a factual voice, yes, all we should say if people are unaffiliated with a party but we want to note which side their political views fall on left/right or liberal/conservative are neutral terms (but of course, backed by sources) Terms beyond that that describe how far from the center are nearly always considered pejorative, especially since the center moves left or right over time, causing some moderately liberal/conservative to suddenly find themselves classified as far-from-center when that center moves, so in the short term per RECENTISM, terms like "far right" should be taken as labels and simply used with claimed attribution. Over time, (eg the case of Nixon or David Duke), when scholars and other experts have a chance to look back at that period and can consider the entire political picture in hindsight, then we can start considering those terms as factual in WP voice. Of course, both "alt-right" and "far-right" are very new terms so we're clearly not at that point yet. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

And to add, it is not about "we can't use these terms". It's simply "we can use these terms with appropriate claimed and inline attribution". Is Moore considered far-right by the bulk of RSes? Absolutely, and it would be wrong to not include that claim. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I do not think anyone is against inclusion of the term. Just not in Wikipedia's voice. It is a highly subjective and negative value laden label for a BLP, and as such policy says inline attribution is the correct answer. PackMecEng (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

T'm also ok with proper inline attribution. That seems like a very reasonable solution to me. Huggums537 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If the sources are unanimous then I don't feel that attribution is required inline. I don't think that the term is subjective in a way such as awesome or terrible would be, but rather a label that is not always agreed upon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a separate issue that if we do accept that we should use language like "Moore is considered far-right." (as opposed to "Moore is far-right") that in a case where that labeling is very common in sources, we don't need to spell out the attribution in text (inline references, though, are still required). Normally when we write opinions as claims we want inline attribution, (eg "The Washington Post considers Moore as far-right"), but trying to spell out every source when many works make that same point is wasting time both by editors and in prose to list them out. I see no issue if you use "Moore is considered far-right", and followed that with 3-4 citations to high-quality RSes that are representative of the bulk of RSes, then that's good enough. (that is, that he is "considered" far right would be obvious enough if we can show NYtimes, WaPost, The Guardian, the Telephragh, etc. are claiming that that we don't need to run down a full list.) If one has to start pulling from more local/regional papers rather than national works, that's a different matter. But that all stems from assuring the wording starts with "Moore is considered far-right." or equivalent language. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the text said: “Moore is an advocate of far-right politics.” I just added the word considered. The paragraph already has 12 cites about his beliefs. O3000 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That works fine - I was just speaking to the generalized case of how much inline attribution is needed for similar situations.

I will note you might encounter other editors that are a bit more pedantic where, if you have a unsourced lead sentence in a paragraph like this one about Moore, that summarizes the next several sentences which are all otherwise sourced (as here), those editors might want to see sourcing on that lead sentence. Whether it needs it or not, that's more personal preference - I don't think this type of situation does as long as the connection is clear. But if tasked, just reuse some of those existing cites to satisfy that. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Are they RS? I added content to Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, it is cited to blogs.spectator.co.uk which is a NEWSBLOG, and per that policy it is attributed. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Certainly he does not seem to be an overly notable writer, and is a freelancer. So very borderline. It hinges on what we mean by professional, I suspect (but am not sure) he writes for a living.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He is a professional journalist Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

He is reliable for his own words of course --Shrike (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

But many people are reliable for what they say, they are not RS (after all extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources).Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not an extraordinary claim. Home Affairs Select Committee report says, "The failure of the Labour Party to deal consistently and effectively with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic,"[5] Plus, of course, the source is reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• He is a professional journalist writing for a newsblog, but it is an opinion piece (just reading that shows that), so needs to be attributed to him (which it was when it was used). So yes, he and the spectator newsblog are reliable for the opinion of the subject. If the objection is that his opinion isn't worth including, that's not really an RS issue. None of the material in the piece are extraordinary, Labour's problem with anti-Semitism is publically available information which has been confirmed repeatedly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Brown, R.E. (1978). An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories. Liturgical Press. ISBN 9780814609972. article:Census of Quirinius

and most scholars think that the author of the gospel made a mistake.

there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee; most scholars have therefore concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error.

Hoveldowns 03:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:USEBYOTHERS: this definitely answers your question.

"Contrary to what Luke indicates, historians have long known from several ancient inscriptions, the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria until 6 C.E., fully ten years after Herod the Great died. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, then Quirinius was not the Syrian governor."

—Bart Ehrman, The New Testament - A Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford, 1997, Box 8.2, p. 102.

"Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977. A massive and exhaustive discussion of the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, suitable for those who want to know simply everything about every detail."

—Bart Ehrman, op. cit., p. 114.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Those would be excellent sources, I know Brown is held in high regard, it is the particular reference that is questionable. One only has to read the title to know that it is not a scholarly work and again it is published by a church press. Hoveldowns 03:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:USEBYOTHERS: this definitely answers your question...

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Are you saying that because his Scholarly work is cited then everything he does is blessed? Is that what WP:USEBYOTHERS means.  That would surprise me. Hoveldowns 04:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This would be the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York City Raymond E. Brown. I'd say he definitely meets our criteria. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Super-specialized topics are often published by super-specialized presses catering to that interest that nobody's ever heard of outside that interest group. Doesn't matter if its Biblical exegesis, art glass, Hummel figurines, or Luftwaffe histories; we pretty much have to assume good faith on the part of the publisher unless there's evidence that they're single-POV pushers. And even that may be hard to separate the publisher from the individual author. In this case, the bookk in question is indeed a scholarly work written by an acknowledged expert in the field and thus, RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Should Steven Parissien's The Life of the Automobile (Thomas Dunne Books, 2014, ISBN 978-1-25-004063-3), be considered reliable for general info about Lada cars, specifically that the early models "gained an affectionate following despite being 'a byword for ugliness'", according to the author (diff)? The cited page is here. Another editor is using irate Amazon reviews to insist that the book is essentially garbage (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I added to the article on Cthulhu in film and TV, using the following citation http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Cthulhu That web page provides interesting detail about how the fearsome idea of Cthulhu is treated in an adult cartoon, but probably too much to cover in the actual Cthulhu article. "Hi Jvpwiki, that's not a reliable source - see WP:SPS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)" I replied as follows: "I read WP:SPS and re-read the citation, and I think the citation should be included. It adds considerable background about how Cthulu is represented in media, but too much to be included in the main article. Please take a glance at the citation http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Cthulhu and let me know if you object to its inclusion. JCvP 16:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC) Nikkimaria responded, "I still disagree with including it" and directed me here. Please let me know your opinion so I can restore the citation if you agree. JCvP 20:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• There are two main issues here. The first is that wiki pages (such as the one you link to) are never considered reliable, because they are user generated... and those users are anonymous editors with no reputation for accuracy. Another reason wikis are considered unreliable is that they are unstable ... what you cite today may not be in the wiki tomorrow (when a new user edits). So ... to discuss how Cthulhu is portrayed in South Park, you would need a source that is considered reliable and stable.

The second main issue is the question of whether it is appropriate for our article on Cthulhu to discuss how the character is portrayed in a cartoon like South Park at all. That is a more subjective question, but one that is worth exploring. Is South Park’s portrayal too trivial to mention? It might be. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, you never so far as I can tell specifically named the article in question, which would help a lot. I'm assuming the article in question is Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture? John Carter (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If we are talking the episode "Mysterion Rises", I clearly see RSes that note that the episode contained Cthulhu (Ent. Weekly episode recap for example, but I see mention of that scene in various "best of Cartman"-type lists subsequent). Per WP:TRIVIA, that meets the minimum standard for including in a pop culture list, if only to identify the appearance without engaging in OR. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Alternative Medicine Review (website) is a reliable medical source. The journal is listed in pubmed, but I'm reluctant to use a source focused on alternative medicine in articles about medical topics. The reliability of this journal was [in 2007], but our standards were lower a decade ago.

The journal is cited in about 50 wikipedia articles. Most of the articles are various compounds that are sometimes touted as supplements. About half the citations on Human body temperature are to two papers published in this journal by a doctor of naturopathic medicine. Billhpike (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Medical journals often get discussed at WT:MED instead of here. This journal was hashed over in 2013 here and most of us were on the "very low quality, should be avoided" side of things. Many of the papers published by that journal are not literature reviews. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This text[6] was recently removed from the One America News Network page, with an editor claiming that The Washingtonian (https://www.washingtonian.com/) is not a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a RS - The Washingtonian has won multiple National Magazine Awards, both general awards but also specifically for its news reporting. The Washingtonian has also won other journalism awards for its reporting.[7] The text sourced to The Washingtonian is also easily verifiable (the article links to a video that substantiates the text). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If you are coming here to ask a question then please don't format it likes this. Upon first glance this looks like another editor is making this comment and the one one asking the question. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I was also very confused by this. Why is an editor asking a question and then responding to themselves as though they are a different person? Natureium (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this was the appropriate way: To (i) present the dispute over the reliability of the source in a neutral and clear fashion and (ii) chip in with my opinion. My sig is attached to both #1 and #2, so it's unclear to me how anyone could be confused. Should I have combined #1 and #2?Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• It has a full editorial staff so it is RS Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is this guideline? Natureium (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What guideline? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You said that it is a reliable source because it has a full editorial staff, and I wanted to find more information, but didn't see where it says this on WP:RS. Can you point me to it? Natureium

(talk) 16:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BIASED "the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so it's required for a source to be reliable, but that alone doesn't make a source reliable. Natureium (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the Washingtonian is a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, it is a reliable source as others say according to the rule.SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• The Washingtonian seems fine as an additional source and multiple outlets reported that OANN made this claim, so I don't really see the objection. I might be a little careful about wording the statement that One America News didn't retract its report - the source presumably means they hadn't retracted by the time the Washingtonian story was written, but they may have issued a retraction in the interim. Nblund ^talk 18:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, The Washingtonian is indeed reliable. Neutrality^talk 03:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science is a journal hosted in Wikiversity, where each article is peer reviewed by at least 2 independent experts (who are independent of the editorial board that subsequently decides about whether to accept or reject the article). Discussions have been held previously about WikiJournal of Medicine as a reference ([8]), but WP:Identifying reliable sources (science) is not the same as WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and previous discussions were held before 2+ reviewers became mandatory. The question is thus, can WikiJournal of Science possibly be used as a reference in science-related articles, if otherwise conforming to the basic advices? Edit: Details about the peer review process: For peer reviewers, For journal editors. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström: Is there anywhere that details this peer review by at least 2 independent experts? I think that should be read before making any judgments. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've now added links above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikiversity has something of a reputation for being overly welcoming to cranks. (See e.g., this article by a Wikipedia admin.) I'm sure not everyone associated with Wikiversity is a crank, probably not even a majority. But the problem apparently is widespread enough that I would be uncomfortable regarding anything produced by Wikiversity as reliable. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly we need to distinguish clearly between carefully peer-reviewed papers in WJSci, and unreviewed material Wikiversity-in-general. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I was asked to become an editor but my interests are history and archaeology, although I just remembered they want me to find an expert on C14 dating to help with peer review. I think we should take a case by case approach to this. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

this recent thread at the fringe theories noticeboard may be interesting. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Doug. "Science" is awfully broad. It's perhaps laudable that they aspire to be competitors with Nature, Science and PNAS but they're probably not quite there yet. I'd want to know more details of the peer review for any article that's under consideration. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the guidelines For peer reviewers and For journal editors, you can also see the ongoing review process for the article Wikiversity:Dialectic algorithm at Wikiversity:Talk:Dialectic algorithm. Yet, fringe theories as described in comment above may be rejected by the board even before starting any peer review process. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

We may need to see how we go with the reviewer recruitment/reviewing first (which reminds me I have some reviewers to contact - oops). If the process works as planned and reviews by at least two outside published experts can be arranged for each article, I believe the main requirements for reliability should be met. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Howard Hughes was born on September 24 or December 24, 1905. Primary sources disagree, as described at Howard Hughes#Early years. The two sources look equally reliable to me, but I'm here because I don't know for sure. Apparently there is no reliable secondary source known at this time.

Is support for one of the dates enough stronger to show only it in the first sentence and infobox, or should we seek a suitable way to hedge this date? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

In the article the note for December 24, 1905 says The handwriting of the baptismal record is a rather trembling one. The clerk was an aged person and there is a chance that, supposedly being hard of hearing, they misheard "December 24" as "September 24" instead. This is speculative., which makes me think that would be the less reliable one, however that is that is unsourced. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No entiendo "that is that is". ―Mandruss ☎ 22:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll strike though that duplication. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's part of my question, then, as I don't see how that's unsourced but the other one is not. Both are official documents, both attested by a single editor, no reason to doubt either. The only difference I see is that the document's particulars are in the footnote for one and in the body prose for the other. I suppose one might require notarization while the other does not, but that wouldn't make it inherently a more reliable source for a DOB. As I understand it, notaries don't check the accuracy of a document, they merely verify the identity(s) of the person(s) signing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That note (about the trembling handwriting) confuses me - is that something some reliable source has written about Hughes or is it some editor's WP:OR? It should be either cited to the source its drawn from or removed, and that whole paragraph should be cited to reliable secondary sources, not primary documents anyway. I don't buy there is no reliable secondary source known at this time for a second. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't around when that was added, but it's fairly clear to me it's the observation (OR) of the editor who looked at the document. Otherwise we would see the source of it cited. Apparently they judged that it was useful information for the reader's consideration, but relegated it to the footnote to minimize it.
For such a high-profile BLP, I trust that some effort has been made to find a reliable secondary source in the 16 years since the article was created. Hughes was notoriously obsessive about his privacy and I don't think there has been a real biography written. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not super high quality, but these: [9][10][11] are at least secondary, personally I would rather cite stuff like that than primary docs. I suspect that Hughes is covered in numerous biographical reference books too, I will see what I can dig up. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Appreciate the help, and don't wish to nag you, but this is close to being archived and I wanted to make sure it's still on your plate. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So the International Society of Genetic Genealogy Wiki has come up a few times, some in the context of plain old "is this an RS", and today it came up in the context of whether a page on this wiki can contribute to notability of a company as one of the "independent sources with substantial discussion" that we look for.

So first, what is ISOGG? Per its home page, its purpose is to "advocate for and educate about the use of genetics as a tool for genealogical research while promoting a supportive network for genetic genealogists." Its work is "done through workshops, our wiki, a speaker's bureau, our forums, and meetings."

Who can join? Anybody. You sign up right here.

Back to the wiki, to be able to edit, all you have to do is "join ISOGG (it's free!) and then register for a Wiki account."

So.. anybody can join ISOGG, and can then register for the wiki.

So - question 1: are pages on the ISOGG wiki WP:USERGENERATED, with regard to being sources for WP content?

Question 2... A page on that wiki is devoted to the company, Full Genomes Corporation (FGC). (A page was directly created in WP by the self-disclosed CEO of the company; it was AfDed and has been voluntarily draftified and is here: Draft:Full Genomes Corporation. The CEO was arguing at the AfD that the page at ISOGG should count toward WP:NCORP here in Wikipedia.)

Most of the page about FGC at the ISOGG wiki was written by a person named Debbie Kennett (you can see that in the history) who is a founder of the ISOGG wiki per this. She is also apparently a big fan of FGC. On her blog (linked from her userpage at the ISOGG wiki), she has a whole slew of press releases directly from FGC - see here. And if you read the ISOGG wiki page about FGC (again the link is [here) you will see that the citations are to FGC's website, "personal communications", and the like.

So question 2: Should the ISOGG article on FGC count toward notability of FGC in Wikipedia?

Thanks for your time. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC) (update to reflect that WP page has been voluntarily draftified Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC))

• Noyes to #1, and no to #2. USERG absolutely applies. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes and no. Not within parsecs of a borderline case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. Would appreciate more input to get a stronger consensus, if anybody would be willing. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with what Masem said, he's on the money Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Recently some edit warring has been going on at Greg Johnson (white nationalist) over content one user (Czarnykon) regards as unreliably sourced, and therefore has been repeatedly removing. Another user (Grayfell) has been repeatedly restoring this content, arguing that is reliably sourced. I would like to see this issue discussed further, and for other editors to add their opinion regarding this content. (Here is an example of one edit removing and altering the content mentioned above.) Everymorning (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Stranger don't look RS, but i see deliberate factual errors being added by Czarnykon, changing Hope not Hate to Antifa being the most obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 72 hours. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Stranger (newspaper) is a reasonably well-respected alternative weekly paper founded in 1991. Beyond just sources, this edit was vandalism on multiple levels. Saying that "patriots" is a synonym for "white nationalists" is not appropriate on Wikipedia, or anywhere. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Alt weekly papers can be reliable, and The Stranger appears to fall in this category. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm familiar with The Stranger, a paper out of Seattle. It's good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Are the population figures from Indiaonlinepages.com sufficiently reliable to use for international comparison? Specifically at Megacity#Largest cities, in the table under column "population" (my bolding):

33 Hyderabad (image) India Asia 12,977,784

...

37 Bangalore (image) India Asia 12,339,447

When Indiaonlinepages simply quotes census figures there is no issue. But metropolitan area populations (not produced by the census) and estimates of current populations require analysis and extrapolation. Some of Indiaonlinepages' stats are surprising:

1. Its Population of Hyderabad has a 12,977,784 figure for Urban Agglomeration, up 67% on the 2011 census figure of 7,749,334.
2. Its Population of Bangalore 2017 puts Bangalore's population at 12,339,447, up 46% on the 2011 census figure of 8,443,675.(here).
3. (Also its Population of Delhi 2017 says "Population of NCR in 2011 was 21,753,486", which the NCR itself (correctly I think) puts at 46,069,000.Annual report page 6.)

While I accept that Indian cities can show very high population growth rates, my concern revolves around Indiaonlinepages not saying where recent figures come from (eg "Greater Metropolitan Area of Hyderabad recorded a population of 11,723,548 in year 2016""), or explaining the basis for current population estimates. Batternut (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Do the claims made at Stockfish (chess)#Stockfish versus AlphaZero meet our sourcing requirements? I am especiallyb concerned with "The research also has not yet been peer reviewed" and "the AlphaZero algorithm was allocated more computing power for the games". The lack of details on methodology (clock speed, memory, etc.) and the publishing in the popular press before peer review reminds my of when cold fusion was first announced. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"Not peer reviewed" is fine--it's a simple statement of fact and is present in the source, though it will be obsolete at some point in the presumably-near future. with no access to opening books or endgame tables, but with superior computing power allocated to AlphaZero and the AlphaZero algorithm was allocated more computing power for the games are not verified/original research from what I can tell--and are rather naive assertions of how the computing hardware works for the two different programs also (from my reading these past couple days). All of those should be removed based on the citations present in the article, or new citations found for them which directly make those statements. --Izno (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello - I'm working on the article Kevin Carter which is connectet to The vulture and the little girl. I planning to add "Legacy" to the section "Death" - like "Death and Legacy". How I see it, a point of his legacy is: For students at colleges which study Journalism and medias is his picture of the Vulture and girl part of the Topic: Ethic. Example: Schreyer Scholars are required to complete an undergraduate honors thesis. For example: The Thesis by Sara Matulonis.^[1]. In her thesis Sara is using as references inline citations from the Book The Bang-Bang Club (book).

Maybe this allone is not working. So I add the review of the book writen by Niranjan S. Karnik as second citation.^[2] In his review he wrote: "as a perspective into the dynamics of wartime reporting it is valuable", and "Its overall value is not as much in its use as source of history, but in how it openly exposes the way journalists suffer in the course of their work, and the heavy ethical and moral questions they face on an daily basis."

The book - Marinovich, Greg; Silva, João (20 September 2000). The Bang-Bang Club: Snapshots from a Hidden War. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04413-1. SELIBR 4962156. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Can I use this two citation for to write that a part of the legacy by Kevin is for to teach about ethics and moral in education of journalists?--Maxim Pouska (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What actions should Wikipedia take?

Are there any further actions (changes in policy) that we should/can take to caution editors about the dangers of erroneous media reports? We do want Wikipedia to be factually accurate... but this goal is hard to achieve when (normally reliable) sources present factually inaccurate information. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The seemingly obvious answer is to use NOT#NEWS as a policy basis to have editors wait a short amount of time - 3 to 4 days - before rushing to create articles/add controversial information to articles - any mistaken news reports usually get fixed within 24hr - but per a straw poll I offered WP:VPP there is no real consensus towards alternating the nature of NOT#NEWS (that is, the poll was inclusive/not sufficient majority to consider a policy change, even if by numbers it tended to favor stronger enforcement). However, everything in policy and WP's approach says this is the right way to do it. The state of the media (both its 24/7 nature and issues like spread of mistaken news around RS) seems to require us to do more. --Masem (t) 19:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment... but I see no way to enforce it, short of blocking editors for “not waiting”? (And if we did that, ANI would be swamped). Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The reader should not be trained to expect an encyclopedia to contain the latest late-braking news. We should train them to go elsewhere for that (Making Wikinews be a proper late-breaking news site would be a great start.)

As for specific policy changes, I think we should modify Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources alongt the lines Masem suggests, bringing it to be more in agreement with Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sadly that may be necessary. We need a policy statement that makes it clear that 3-4 days before posting a story is a policy, not a guild line. It should be no more of an issue then the rules against OR.Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Masem's suggestion, I'd actually support this if it was consistently applied (including, for example, to naming and giving details about the alleged perpetrators of terrorist attacks, reporting media speculation about the causes of planes crashes & similar disasters, etc.) You know how that will go over in practice though... a lot of editors are very keen on reporting stuff like that immediately. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It was just this that caused me to suggest something similar a while ago. Pages that are (literally) updated every few seconds ans new news sources publish more speculation.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, y'all. Reputable news outlets sometimes get things wrong, this isn't a new phenomenon, and we've done okay so far without arbitrary embargoes on breaking news. I don't see anything here that can't be solved with existing policies and a healthy dose of editorial prudence. Nblund ^talk 20:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that we AREN’T getting the necessary level of editorial prudence. So how do we achieve it? Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not just about them getting stories wrong, it is that the "on the moment" speculation or reports or whatever you want to call it has no place to be in WP until time has passed (read: a few days) and its importance or appropriateness can be better judged. Just because an RS has published something does not make it appropriate to include, particularly when it is something that is controversial or cannot be collaborated easily. --Masem (t) 23:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

While I agree, you said it yourself... there is no consensus to support a “No citing news for X days” rule. So, we have to take a different approach. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It is very rare that a real news outlet gets a story wrong (in terms of the ratio of inaccurate stories to accurate stories, I'd say that scientific journals - "usually, the most reliable sources" - publish more papers with corrections, retractions and severe rebuttals than news outlets publish false stories). The only problems are usually just editors misinterpreting breaking news stories (usually gets quickly fixed) and something being added that doesn't have lasting importance (usually gets fixed when it becomes blatantly clear that the story isn't important enough in the grand scheme of things). Neither problem is consequently big, and neither problem is unique to breaking news. As someone who both adds recent content myself and who follows pages where extremely recent content gets added in by others, it is astonishingly rare that just plain false content gets edited in. This is a non-existent problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What, not even a small “mea culpa” Snoogan? Face it, you rushed things, and ended up adding material that turned out to be inaccurate. I understand that you acted in good faith, I don’t accuse you of wrongdoing... but you could have avoided that had you been more cautious to begin with.

My point is that we ALL need to be more cautious. Errors in reporting are more common than you think. Yes, the reputable outlets acknowledge their errors and issue corrections, but how many of our fellow editors bother to CHECK for those corrections? Not many. And of those that do, how many have the integrity to actually go back and remove what they added once they discover the error? (I note that you didn’t).

My concern isn’t actually about the sources... it’s about OUR behavior, and OUR responsibility as editors. Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This is definitely part of the problem. Taking the Trump situation specifically (but this can apply to any politicized topic), there are editors that clearly do not like Trump and want him out. That's fine, that's one's opinion. But it is very easy to see breaking news like this story that clearly supports your view, and because it is from an RS, its very easy to go "Of course this is fine", failing to ask the key questions whether there's a BLP issue, whether this is contentious information that should be held off until there's more details about it, does it fail RECENTISM, etc. And then these editors get defensive when other editors question the inclusion, because "but so many RS reported it!" Our goal is to write for permanence, not what just came hot off the press, and we need more editors to separate their personal opinions about these topics from proper review of the sources and type of news they are reporting. --Masem (t) 02:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also added studies that turned out to be bad[14], and promptly corrected them[15]. When you mean that I should "been more cautious to begin with", I'm unclear what I should have done precisely. It seems like you're just saying that I should sit on WP:DUE information for an unspecified amount of time because 1/500 stories contain important inaccuracies. This is virtually a non-existent problem. Also, the inaccurate text on the Wikileaks Wikipedia page was promptly corrected by someone else and would have been fixed by myself. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether that information was DUE/UNDUE is something that needed the hindsight that comes with the passage of time. Just because some story or facet of one is reported (even factually true and accurately) by hundreds of RSes doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic information; per NOT#NEWS we're supposed to be looking at how these events would be seen 5-10+ years after they have happened, not what's happening now. Taking the Russian interference topic, every little twist and turn in the situation is not necessary for an encyclopedia; we should be waiting to see if and what legal actions end up happening and write based on that point, rather than trying to be documenting the situation better than RSes. That's a general approach regardless if the media is objective or not. --Masem (t) 14:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that would have a severely adverse impact on Wikipedia. A 5-10 yr rule would reduce the quality of the sources and the quality of editors' write-ups. It's actually easier to accurately write up text and add thorough sourcing in the now than later. It would be a complete hell to write up the history of, say, how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (or any event) came to be 5-10 yrs after the fact rather than do it at the time. I don't patrol the Russian Interference page, so I can't speak for what's happening over there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying we have to wait 5-10 years to add information on breaking news, but be aware of what type of information is most relevant in such stories that adding it will still be relevant in 5-10 years. That's the whole point of WP:RECENTISM. We shouldn't be trying to write as detailed (per our purpose as an encyclopedia) and that's why waiting for some time for sources that are more reflective of past events rather than from the midst of it would be better sources in the long term. --Masem (t) 14:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Recentism is about WP:UNDUE focus on recent events. Nobody is seriously arguing that we can leave recent events out of an article entirely, provided they have reasonably broad coverage; the risk of recentism is when we place more emphasis on a recent event than it objectively deserves simply because it's recent. But when people come to Wikipedia in response to breaking news, they should absolutely see it reflected on our article. The risk that breaking news will sometimes change as a result of retractions and similar events is adequately covered by our breaking-news templates, which belong on top of any article affected by a recent event and are used precisely because situations like this are normal and expected. --Aquillion (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing that mandates us to serve people coming to an encyclopedia for news, especially when NOT#NEWS remains a policy. We create our own Catch 22 problem when we do this, because writing for breaking news requires a very different approach and mentality than writing for an encyclopedia. I'm certainly not saying we can't cover recent events - we do quite well when it is an event devoid of endless streams of analysis, such as natural disasters, the results of elections, sporting events, etc, because from an encyclopedic view, we know what information is going to be necessary to include and stands the test of time. It's when we have controversial events where there is more analysis and speculation going on from the media than factual documentation. That's where this approach that's currently being used breaks down, highlighted by incidents like this. Thats's where editors need to put more careful control of how fast they add things to an article. Our goal should not be to mirror up-to-the-minute news, but figure out how best to reflect on that in the wake of the story, something that won't happen for at least a few days. --Masem (t) 15:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We have a responsibility to maintain an up-to-date encyclopedia; leaving out breaking news, when it is clearly high-profile and attracting a lot of coverage, is flatly not an option (and I think most of the people writing here realize this - we cannot realistically prevent people from adding it.) I think the best we can do is sometimes wait when something is only covered by a single source. When multiple reliable mainstream sources are reporting on something, though, it absolutely belongs in an article; I feel the damage to both our reputation and our reliability would be severe if we were to wait on things like that, since people come to Wikipedia expecting it to be up to date. There's no shame in getting something wrong if the reliable sources were wrong, and if we reflect them and rapidly update to reflect changes to the story when available - but it would badly harm our reputation if something were receiving massive coverage and was clearly relevant and yet have no reflection in our articles at all. The best we can do is to apply breaking-news banners in situations like that, which provide adequate warning to readers that the article is using very recent stories that may change rapidly (including, yes, potential retractions.) But intentionally keeping our articles out-of-date is flatly not a realistic option and would take away from one of the main reasons people use Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Who told you "we have a responsibility to maintain an up-to-date encyclopedia"? Nobody asked me whether we should attempt to do such a stupid thing. An encyclopedia that is "up-to-date" as of three days ago -- but accurate -- would be a far better encyclopedia than what we have now. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

From WP:NOTNEWS: As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Those two requirements conflict. First we would have claimed that no strongly hyperbolic objects had been observed when they had and that 1I/'Oumuamua was a comet when the VLT had already shown it wasn't. Outdated is inaccurate.©Geni (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they do conflict, but that's why WP:RECENTISM exists. It is to help bridge the gap between no deadline and keeping current.

However, there is a difference here in the type of information, and for purposes of example, let's remember what happened with the media and the death of Tom Petty. There is information that is of fundamental encyclopedic value for a topic. For a person, the date and cause of death is critically high. For a notable celestial object, its nature and uniquenes are of high value. We have long histories of these types of articles, including going through the whole GA/FA, to know what elements are high value aspects. When an RS reports on one of those high value aspects, immediate inclusion is completely appropriate, even if that turns out to be wrong (ala Petty).

But when we talk about someone involved in politics or a topic related to that, the latest news on a controversial element is of unknown value. It may be super important, it may not be in the long term (Take all these people called out in the Metoo movement - mostly all accusations - which we don't know will go anywhere or affect those people at this point). Because we don't know that encyclopedic value, we should not be adding it in a rush but take time to let the information distill and process through the news cycle to know if it is important. That's the fundamental difference here between an encyclopedia and a newspaper - we're not running our articles unfiltered, we're carefully writing summaries, whereas news media, in generic, publish anything they see fit to print. --Masem (t) 22:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

On the statement When multiple reliable mainstream sources are reporting on something, though, it absolutely belongs in an article I would reread the Intercept article, as it makes the point that due to the nature of the story (a "smoking gun" if it were correct) and the current bias that the RSes have, that it spread like wildfire through them, and that is harmful when these stories just repeat and make no attempt to corroborate. Political rumors like this are one step removed from celebrity gossip, which generally fall into BLP, and per BLP, just because there's a widely reported bit of gossip, we do not include it just because it exists. Same should be true with political stories like this; yes, there are much more critical impacts of they turn out to be true, but they still present a form of gossip we simply should not be including just because its widely reported. If after a few days it seems appropriate to retain, then it can be added. --Masem (t) 16:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. A three-day waiting period for things that are receiving widespread, credible coverage and which otherwise meet our standards for inclusion would do drastic harm to our core mission and would seriously damage our accuracy by forcing us to maintain an inaccurate article at the point in time when it is likely to be receiving the most traffic. It would also be entirely unenforceable during high-profile events without full-protecting the article and declaring on the talk page that no consensus to include will be respected until three days have passed. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There is definitely the monkey-see-monkey-do problem of new editors, seeing experience editors do what they do with breaking stories, and trying to follow suit. Doing something that only stops experienced editors but lets new/anon editors (even if they are editing in good faith) to do the same is not a solution. But we also need to recognize how influential our experienced editors are towards these editing patterns, and encouraging experienced edits to chill out on breaking news would help to prevent potential problems. This is, like several other issues here related to breaking news coverage, a catch-22 problem. And we are not required to be accurate now should aim for this in the short-term. We disclaim we're not to be used for accuracy, and as there is no deadline to get articles right, we can wait on these topics. And in truth, I'd see no problem that if the media dropped a bombshell on a controversial topic that is creating a mass media stir that we know is going to draw editors, that such topics if they already exist should be locked down for at least a few days. I have witnessed breaking news articles that are developed fairly non-problematically, like the Boston Marathon bombing or the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, but I point out that these are all cases where the stories are principally objective ("this happened"). As soon as you get into the area where the story is being driven by speculation and subjective assessment, that's when the edit warring starts. The shear number of ANI/AE reports for experienced editors (not just new ones) demonstrates we as a community cannot write these articles appropriate in real-time. Nor should that be our goal at all. --Masem (t) 19:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem, Guy and Blueboar near the top of this section. WP:NOTNEWS is already policy; it should be more stringently adhered to. If that swamps ANI, well... That's why the symbol for an admin is a mop, not a crown. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTNEWS more carefully. It absolutely does not allow us to disregard anything that would otherwise be suitable for inclusion solely based on its recent nature. In fact, it specifically requires that we maintain up-to-date articles: As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. WP:NOTNEWS concerns things that would not be suitable for inclusion in the long term, even if nothing in the reporting changed, as well as requiring that we wait until it has received coverage from other news sources rather than just relying on the first-hand reporting of whoever broke the scoop (which, in this case, did happen.) Like WP:RECENTISM, it says that we should avoid undue emphasis on breaking news and recent events, but still requires that we cover them - obviously, since the alternative is absurd. Ignoring something that is widely-covered in WP:RSes and which would unequivocally be suitable for inclusion based on current coverage, solely because we are afraid that coverage may turn out to be wrong, is not a position supported by policy. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Read points number 2 and 4 again, please. When you are done, read the essay WP:RECENT, which supplements it and addresses exactly this issue. They key words to keep an eye out for are "enduring" and "timely". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, please actually read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, entirely and in context; it's increasingly clear that you haven't sat down and actually read them, and are just relying on a quick skim supplemented by vague memories. Try to discard your misunderstanding of what you think they mean, and read what they actually say. They don't support your position here at all; nothing in them - not a single word - allows us to discard recent sources based on the fear that they might be incorrect. What they say is While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information, (note, we're not allowed to treat it differently) and Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. The purpose of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM is to say one specific thing - recent events should not be given undue weight beyond what they would deserve in the long term, but should be covered with weight appropriate to the overall topic (note that the "otherwise treated differently" wording forbids us from minimizing recent events as well.) What this thread is about, by my understanding, involves a proposed new policy that would ask the question of "what if the sources are wrong?" That is absolutely not a part of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM in any way, shape, or form; no policy allows us to disregard something that is well-attested to by reliable recent sources purely based on the speculation that it may be inaccurate, or demand that people refrain from putting it in an article for a few days to see if there are retractions or corrections. It's clear that some people want such a policy (although I think it's an awful idea for the reasons I outlined above), but the people who are hammering WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM as if they already provide support for such a position are completely mistaken and only weaken their argument by mentioning them. They provide absolutely no support for your position. At all. They are solely and exclusively about striking a balance between new stuff and old stuff, according to the weight appropriate to each; the only question they ask of us is "based on the current coverage, how noteworthy is this event in the long-term?" If anything, they completely undermine the argument people are making, above, that we can leave sources out entirely based solely on speculation that they may eventually be retracted (because, again, we are required to determine due weight based around the sources we have.) No one is asserting a lack of balance in this case - people are saying that we should deny recent but widespread coverage from otherwise reliable sources the weight it would otherwise be due, solely based around concerns that it could turn out to be false. That is an interesting suggestion (if radical and, I think, completely wrongheaded), but it is not and has never been reflected in Wikipedia's policy or practice at all, and pretending that it can somehow be read into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM based on, I can only assume, nothing more than the names of their links is a mistake. The only rationale I can think of as to why people are under this misapprehension - since the policy pages in question are completely clear - is that editors have sometimes cited WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM to argue against the inclusion of a recent source without providing context or a detailed argument, and constantly seeing them used that way has lead to the misapprehension that they universally prohibit recent sources or some such nonsense. But it only takes a few moments to read them and correct this mistake - they are very specific about the narrow scope they apply to, and were both unambiguously written to allow for recent sources on controversial topics provided the claim in the source is both well-supported in reliable sources and would be notable for inclusion in the long term. For example, "senator has a wacky pratfall" is something they'd require that we leave out (because it is unlikely to be important in the long run); whereas "senator commits multiple knife-murders" would go in their article the instant we had reasonable coverage, even if it had happened mere hours ago. (You might use those policies to argue about how prominently the knife-murders should be mentioned for a bit. But those policies unambiguously wouldn't support excluding it entirely.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have "actually" read them, why don't you do the same? And read my actual fucking comments while you're at it. You've already made some shit up about what you think I'm saying which I'm not going to dignify with a response, so stop with this "why don't you actually read it" bullshit and take your own fucking advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Aquillion is correct that both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM relate more to notability and due weight questions rather than to reliable sourcing questions. WP:RSBREAKING deals with reliability questions and seems like the more relevant policy here. It may seem like an academic distinction, but a lot breaking news is indisputably notable if true. Celebrity deaths, for instance, are probably prima facie notable for any celebrity who passes WP:GNG Nblund ^talk 23:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll point to my comment above made at 22:21, 11 December 2017 as a note: there are types of things that 100% absolutely essential material (the death of a notable person) to include an encyclopedia, and we'd include as long as an RS has reported it, even if that is later shown wrong (as with Tom Petty). The situation from this original story (the Wikileaks reporting claim) is definitely not essential encyclopedic information, and we should use much more care before rushing to include, particularly if it is controversial. --Masem (t) 23:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your comment, I was just clarifying why the policy distinction matters. Regarding your suggestion: I'm not sure why that's an improvement over existing policies. Hypothetically, if Bat Boy endorsed Barack Obama, and everyone agreed that this was accurate and obviously notable - if not essential - why not simply include it in the article? To me, offering special dispensation for "controversial" edits sounds like it invites the manufacturing of controversy when no legitimate content dispute exists. I really doubt it would lead to more consensus building. Nblund ^talk 00:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that if there's a strong consensus of editors to add something that is breaking news that is not essential to an article earlier, then it should be added; that approach is generally the core of how WP should function. But part of this is developing editor mindsets to recognize that something like "Batbot endorses Obama" is not encyclopedic content that it shouldn't be likely added at all, before consensus is even made. There's a whole spectrum of what is essential information to any article to what is fluff/indiscriminate, so determining what can be added sooner than later is not a black-and-white determination. --Masem (t) 14:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Other example

Example: [16] – 2017 New York City attempted bombing – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 New York City attempted bombing – List of terrorist incidents in New York City#December 11, 2017

Questions regarding this example:

• Suggested advice for involved editors (e.g. at Talk:2017 New York City attempted bombing)?
• Number of non-lethal casualties seems to differ from source to source: how to figure that out (Wikipedia seems to "lead" with determining its number as five) – what is "fake" news and what isn't?
• Seems illogical to have a separate article about this and not a single mention of the incident in the body of the Port Authority Bus Terminal article (WP:Summary style principle).
• "New York City attempted bombing" does not seem an appropriate name for the incident (as an article title it is at least questionable): "Port Authority Bus Terminal attempted suicide attack" may be more to the point (although maybe a bit longish).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This obviously isn’t “fake” news... but it is an example of rushing to write an article before the basic facts were known.

The question I have whether this failed bombing attempt is really notable enough for a stand alone article. Sure, it was all over the news yesterday morning (“if it bleeds it leads” after all) but by the evening news broadcasts it was hardly being mentioned (the attention span of the media had shifted back to the special election in Alabama). It seems that this failed attack has had no lasting effect or significance... and no sustained coverage. It is worth mentioning the event somewhere in WP (perhaps as part of a list of attacks article), but I seriously question whether it rates a stand alone article on its own. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"five persons injured" obviously *was* fake news (Wikipedia's, while the quoted source, as it happens CNN, object of the discussion here, said "four"). Note that the fake news has been corrected since, but it has been in the article for some time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• What do people here think about this revert, bringing back a number links of apparently not-too-closely related topics (more closely related topics remain unmentioned). This seems to suggest some POV, for which no single source is given. So unless someone thinks we should keep such OR-ish list of links, I'll remove it again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

One of my edits was reverted as I'd used dailymail.co.uk as a source. I learned about WP:DAILYMAIL which links to an RFC and also Talk:Daily Mail#RFC. I'm confused about where we are at with respect to this as there are no edit notices or warnings to editors that use that source and it seems the use of dailymail.co.uk is increasing at a rapid pace.

• On 2014-06-14 User:Emijrp/External Links Ranking notes there were 26,251 external links to dailymail.co.uk.
• As of today 2017-12-04 there are 52,929 external links to dailymail.co.uk. In 1,269 days 26,678 more links were added or roughly 21 new links per day.
• Note there's a confusing aspect in that the RFC mentions 12,000 links but does not provide a source for this.

Here's a summary of the current external link counts:

• 4 links for dailymail.co.uk with no subdomain name prefix before dailymail.co.uk.
• 52,487 links for www.dailymail.co.uk
• 3 links for www.dailymail.co.uk:80 with the protocol number included
• 290 links for i.dailymail.co.uk
• 57 links for img.dailymail.co.uk
• 88 links for *.dailymail.co.uk style links where * is a subdomain name other than www, i, or img which are listed separately above. There are 40 subdomain names linked to with none of them having more than 7 links. The full list of subdomain names is: bazblog, benedictblog, blakesmalltalkblog, broganblog, chapman, countycricketblog, dooleyblog, duncanblog, explore, footballleagueblog, golfblog, grayblog, gyngellblog, hanlonblog, hickleyblog, hiltonblog, johnsblog, kaysblog, leablog, leslieblog, lizjonesmaghag, m, pandyablog, phillipsblog, poshproperty, poultonblog, richardsblog, singletonblog, skezza, synonblog, travelblog, travelchatter, wilson2012blog, wolfblog, worldfootball, worldoftennisblog, wrightblog, ww, wwopw, www.wc2010
• 52,929 total links to *.dailymail.co.uk with the http: protocol
• 7 links for *.dailymail.co.uk with the https: protocol

--Marc Kupper|talk 20:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no established process to review existing DM links and replace if needed. Further, it is not all DM links that are bad, only those from the most recent years, and there are still valid cases of using a DM article for sourcing (if, for example, DM is part of a controversy). Why we are still getting more DM links is anyone's guess. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is this a good edit? Long-term stable article, uncontroversial topic far away from the problem DM biases, removing three several-years-old DM refs in favour of no refs and some added ((cn)) tags. I can't support edits like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Outright removal of sources and leaving just a CN tag is not helpful (without removing the text in question too) is not helpful. DM is not reliable, but they're going to have at least key names and terms that would help with searching for better sources. I would recommend that instead we use ((dubious)) to tag DMs that have to be replaced. Of course, if it is a BLP issue, then both source text and DM ref should go away until that can be satisfied. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• The Anti-DM RFC was good for clarifying when it is inappropriate to cite the DM, but I think we may need a follow up RFC, to clarify what types of information the DM is appropriate for. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• FWiW editors for quite some time have removed DM without replacing it - Not something I agree with but anyway from my understanding of it all the DM shouldn't be used at all regardless of what article it's being used on, There should be edit filters etc which I assume should point to the RFC ?... dunno but that's my unhelpful 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The DM is not a reliable source, so any reference to the DM is the same as having no reference. It is correct therefore to remove the reference and note the passage is unreferenced. In the example provided, I would not use a current news reference for something that happened over a century ago. Newspapers are good sources for what happened yesterday, not for history. It seems bizarre to me that while the DM is not rs, the Express, the Mirror and the Sun are fine. But it's not really a problem because we would generally only add information to articles if it was covered by every newspaper. TFD (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think that the Daily Mirror and the Sun can be described as "fine". Ok, they may not be subject to a wide-ranging ban, like the Daily Mail, but editors should always try to avoid tabloids and search for a better source elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• After the RFC ... February there was some discussion whether some old material was acceptable; two of the closers participated in the discussion but didn't rule; the OP concluded that the references didn't need to be removed. In May three of the closers agreed that the ban didn't apply to some Daily Mail opinion articles. In September the same thing was re-discussed. So we know the ban wasn't supposed to be total but that could have been clearer, as we can see from the periodic confusion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Question Does this guideline include the Mail on Sunday? It's published by the same company, and their articles appear on the Daily Mail website, but they have a separate editorial staff. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That's another thing that's unclear. Two editors brought it up during the RfC ("And there are other publications like Metro and the Mail on Sunday. The proposal seems unclear.") ("The Mail On Sunday and the web site have been winners too, but maybe the ban proposal isn't about them (there's some "muddle" about what the ban proposal is about.") But one of the closers said later "About the Mail on Sunday, I don't see any differentiation or discussion of that newspaper in the RfC.". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that blanket removal is not a good idea (unless this is potentially damaging content in a BLP page). This is for the same reasons why blanket removal of unsourced content is not a good idea. Instead of removing something one should evaluate the statement and try to replace it by better sources or mark as "sourcing required". My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit by Rockypedia removed a reference in the article for Millville Senior High School that was taken from Yahoo Sports. While other sources are available and are in the article, the reference from Yahoo Sports includes details not available in the other sources. As noted by ValarianB in this edit at WP:ANI, "dismissing Yahoo Sports as just 'a sports blog' is disingenuous", noting that contributors to Yahoo Sports "are real, credentialed journalists", a sentiment with which I concur.

Is Yahoo Sports a reliable source? Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation in the very first sentence here: The Yahoo blog post wasn't just "removed", it was replaced with the actual reliable secondary source that the blog post was linking to and referencing. Rockypedia (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yahoo Sports doesn't help its case: I can find other submissions by the Yahoo story's author, but I can't find a bio/credits blurb on him. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the entire premise and goal of this question are incompatible. Alan Sohn is attempting to conflate all of Yahoo Sports with a blog page post that he originally used as a source, and when I replaced that blog post with the reliable secondary sources that the blog post linked to, he didn't like it and edit warred over it and called me a "dick" and told me to "get lost." Of course Yahoo Sports can be a reliable source; that doesn't mean every page under the sports.yahoo.com domain is a reliable secondary source, and this one is not, as it's a tertiary source. The specific blog piece that he wants back in the article is just that: a blog post that was written under the "high school sports blog" section of the overall Yahoo Sports family. He's merely trying to conflate the two in his quest to WP:OWN all NJ-related pages and there's a healthy dose of WP:WINNING in this particular attempt as well. Rockypedia (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This may help: https://fancredsports.com/Profiles/cameron-smith. He looks like a credible writer to me. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Yahoo Sports blog piece doesn't add any details that aren't in the two sources already in the paragraph. Honestly, this is just another case of Alansohn assering WP:OWN over a NJ- or NY-related page, of which there are many documented instances. The blog itself links back to the sources that it draws upon: "According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources..." - there's absolutely no reason to include it when the original sources are available, and they are. It's a tertiary source, it's a blog. Alansohn is just fighting over a very stupid detail to have it stay in because I removed it and it turns out that he originally added it. I'm sorry I offended him by changing one of "his" pages, but I feel it's important to take a stand here: I've been emailed by 2 other editors who stated that they didn't wish to get involved because they've had to deal with Mr. Sohn before and it's an incredibly frustrating process. This, and he called me a "DICK" (his capitalization) in his original attack on me and told me to take my "bullshit edit war" elsewhere, as if I was the one who started it. It's really time to take a step back, Mr. Sohn, and ask yourself: are you that involved in Wikipedia that "winning" is all that matters? What purpose does that serve? Rockypedia (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This ain't AN/I part 2. Over half of that wall of blah is about the editor not this posting. Cut it out. Arkon (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This note from User:The Bushranger was left at WP:ANI at this edit and is copied here in full: "Many news sites have "blogs" about sports. This is not the same sense as, say, a Wordpress or Blogspot (or are those one and the same now?) blog, it's the sense of 'we call it a blog because blogs are trendy'. They are, in fact, just as reliable as anything else from those sites; the word "blog" is not a shibboleth for reliability." Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, distorting this particular case and using an out-of-context quote from another editor to try and force your version of the page. The piece in question isn't "Yahoo Sports", which can be used as a reliable source at times (of course). The piece in question is clearly marked as part of the Yahoo Sports "High School Blog" - furthermore, it doesn't have any research of its own in it; it merely links to two other articles, and even states its attribution with "According to the Newark Star-Ledger, Philadelphia Inquirer and other sources..." No one is saying you can't use Yahoo Sports as a reliable source, which is the false premise you've started this discussion under. The point is that that particular article is a blog, it's a tertiary source, it adds nothing of value on its own, and the reliable secondary sources are already in the article. Rockypedia (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia, the post at WP:ANI from Bushranger was quoted in its entirety, word for word; I'm not sure how it can be taken out of context. Both ValarianB and Bushranger have discussed explicitly that this a blog piece associated with the main web site, and both see no issue here. YOU are the person saying that it can't be used here and you are the one who needlessly removed it. All you're doing here by chiming in again is making a false premise and misrepresenting the rather clear consensus here that blog entries from Yahoo Sports are an appropriate source. Maybe it truly is time for you to move on to other battles.

}While consensus here so far after more than a week of discussion is rather clear that the site and the author are reliable sources -- no one has indicated otherwise -- I will wait another 24 hours before reinserting the material. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure ValarianB and The Bushranger were both speaking in general terms about Yahoo Sports, and not about this specific blog piece that was just basically a link to two legitimate articles. There's no battle, because the page is fine as it currently stands, with good reliable secondary sources, and there's certainly no consensus that a tertiary source should be used in place of two secondary sources. You're not re-inserting anything without consensus, which you don't have. "Maybe it truly is time for you to move on to other battles" sounds like sound advice that you're giving yourself. I'm also waiting for you to apologize for calling me a "DICK" (capitalization yours); when's that coming? Rockypedia (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"But actually, Jingles..." I would consider that "blog" to be as reliable as the rest of Yahoo! Sports. That is a case of "Blogs are trendy. Millenials love blogs, right? We're going to call our columns and features blogs!" They have a regular high-school sports column, that, because it's The In Thing, is called a blog because blogs get more clicks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

But, The Bushranger... in that particular link, you can see that it's literally just a blog post pointing to two articles that are reliable secondary sources. There's no independent research being done there, and no additional info added, true? In my view, that makes it tertiary, and not as good a source as the two actual secondary sources. I was only referring to that one article, not all Yahoo Sports blogs in general. It was Alansohn that decided that since he'd added the blog post originally as a source, he needed to keep the page the way he perviously had it, despite the sourcing being obviously improved. Rockypedia (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I really do not understand why this is still an active discussion. Between the ANI and this, the complaint goalposts seem to be shifting from citation styles to civility to accusations of tit-for-tat following some AFD to the reliability of Yahoo Sports. As I noted at the ANI, I see no reason why this blog is unreliable, as they have real journlists who have written for newspapers and othre media employed there. It's not guy-on-couch-with-tv-remote. ValarianB (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

to ValarianB: Well, if you notice, it was Mr Sohn who kept "shifting the goalposts." First he claimed his reversion of my addition was a problem with citation style. I modified my reference to satisfy his complaint about citation style, and now he's saying the blog piece (which is nothing more than two links to reliable secondary sources and contains no new information or research on its own) is a better source than the actual reliable secondary source that it links to, which is ridiculous. Again, I'm not saying Yahoo Sports is unreliable - I'm saying that the blog post is merely a rehash of two pieces in reliable sources, and we should use those reliable sources in the Millville article rather than the blog post, in this case. The reason it's still a discussion is that Alansohn, after bludgeoning the WP:ANI (which went unresolved) with his shifting claims, decided he still needs the page to revert to his version, and started a discussion here to try and justify it. He's exhibited this WP:OWN behavior across hundreds on NJ-related articles, where his version is always the "best" in his opinion, and apparently will stop at nothing, even in the face of basic logic, to try and get his way. I do feel it's important to not give in to this bullying behavior. As I mentioned before, I was emailed outside of Wikipedia, and here's the salient points of that email:

I'm not commenting publicly, because I try to stay as far away from this editor as possible, but *all* of the behaviors you describe in your AN/I report are typical for him. He basically acts as if he OWNs all New Jersey articles, and a lot of NYC ones as well. He's a demon about CITEVAR, and has more than once undone hours of my editing when I cleaned up an article's references by putting them all in the same style where they had been a mish-mash of styles beforehand.

Ever since I expressed the opinion that he was in the wrong in a long-running battle with (name redacted) he's gone out of his way to make edits that he knows (or hopes) will annoy me.

Anyway, this is just to say that I understand what you're going through, and I both empathize and sympathize, but saying so publicly would ultimately be bad for my blood pressure.

Since I was emailed through the Wikipedia system, I assume an admin could verify this. I'm clearly not the only one who has had this experience with Mr. Sohn. Looking at his edit history, block history, and talk page history, it's pretty easy to see a pattern. Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I really do not see a reason to change the source from Yahoo to another, both provide the reader with the same information. As to the rest of what looks like stuff about bullying and the posting of some purported, anonymous e-mail, that has no relevance to a Reliable Source discussion, and that complaint should be filed elsewhere. ValarianB (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I do see a reason, and it's in WP:SECONDARY. The secondary sources are most preferable, and the blog post merely links to the secondary sources, making it a tertiary source. That's not to say it's unacceptable, but since the secondary sources are available (and more reliable, as they are not blogs), they are preferred. Rockypedia (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that Yahoo sports is a tertiary source, which is usually defined as an encyclopedia or similar compendium. A source citing another source for its own story does not make it tertiary. ValarianB (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again... not Yahoo Sports in general. That particular page, which is part of the Prep Rally blog, which itself is part of Yahoo Sports, is a tertiary source. There's a huge difference between saying "This website is a tertiary source" and "this one blog post, which is part of that really huge website, is a tertiary source." Rockypedia (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Advanced Aquarium Concepts a reliable source? I'd like to use it in the airstone article. http://advancedaquariumconcepts.com/air-bubbles-do-actively-aerate/ discusses both the fact that some fishkeepers don't believe that air bubble actively aerate water, and the fact that this belief is mistaken. I think that this is a self published source. Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Here we go: "I have been in the hobby since 1995. I have worked in the industry since 2000. ... I am a Biologist and have had articles published in Aquarium Fish International, Tropical Fish Hobbyist, and Practical Fishkeeping magazines. I have multiple other articles accepted by and awaiting publication in Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine." Okay, this is textbook WP:SPS, expert exception. Because the writer of this website is generally recognized as an expert in the field (because he's been published in magazines that have editorial oversight), the content he provides is reliable. It's best to attribute any content to him directly, though, as in, "Aquarium expert John/Jane Doe, author of 'Article,' says that the belief that air bubbles do not provide adequate aeration is unfounded because..."

The only reason this wouldn't apply would be if the writer is lying about his/her credentials. If someone challenges this source, the best thing to do would be to supply the writer's real name and provide a link to one or more of the magazine articles he/she has authored. One time, I emailed the author of a website to ask them for information like this, and they seemed flattered and pleased to provide it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPS does say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer," but if all you want to say is "this myth exists" rather than that any one specific person believes it, you're probably in the clear. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

https://www.jatland.com/home/Main_Page Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope... most wikis are not considered reliable because a) content is user generated and b) content changes (information that might be in the wiki today might not be in the wiki tomorrow). Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, could an experienced user assess the following info:

Source: [25], [26] and [27]

Article: Persian famine of 1917–1919

Content to be used:

The mentioned photo is removed from the article with the claim that there were no RSs supporting it. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that the image is what those sources represent. Other sites/sources say it was taken in Budapest during WWII (eg, [28][29][30]). Based on image quality, and the fact that one of the corpses appears to have a "jewish badge" sewn on their clothes (clearly visible in this higher res version, see the man with his hand on his face in the bottom left corner) that seems like a much more likely than it having been taken before 1920. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, Sott.net is obviously not a reliable source, VNN runs stories like "America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars" and claiming that the Charlie Hebo massacre was a false flag, and Jeune Nation is an openly fascist publication. Why anyone would present those as RS is beyond me. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is the image at Yad Vashem, where it is labeled as being "Budapest, Hungary, Remains of bodies found during an exhumation at the old-age home courtyard on Maros St". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Fyddlestix and Ealdgyth:. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently 13 articles use one or more Global Ebook Awards as claims for notability. Given the promotionalism at http://globalebookawards.com/, should they be mentioned at all, or can they be happily deleted? Pages on judging are [31][32][33][34], which might give a veneer of respectability but seems rather ad hoc ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Source:https://books.google.com/books?id=9zpbEj0xA_sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Muhammad,+Prophet+of+God Article: Muhammad's wives

At first, Muhammad himself was unsure of what to believe, but eventually trusted Aisha's protestations of innocence

Is the reliability of source confirmed? Saff V. (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems reliable prima facie. Established professor of Islamic studies publishing at a reputable publisher.Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is new, but it's the first time I saw it. Evidently, our beloved Huffington Post is "hosting" user generated content which, at first glance, looks like their own. The example I saw was here, note the gray box on the right. Seems like something we should all keep our eyes peeled for. Again, if this has already been discussed, my apologies for rehashing it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

They do appear to remove articles but whether that is due to fact-checking is not known. https://www.facebook.com/nomadcapitalist/posts/723959057768575 --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

(Minor spoilers for the new Star Wars film.)

Details here. Basically, Oknazevad (talk · contribs) believes that the statement

Leia saves herself using the Force

is made as obvious as [it] can be by her body positioning, [and] the music, which features ... Binary Sunset (the Force theme). I think that such a claim needs a secondary source, and that it's only "obvious" to fans like myself based on an extensive knowledge of earlier films in the franchise (which means the film itself, which is cited implicitly as the sole sole source, is not actually the sole source of the information).

But I might just be interpreting the policy in an overly strict fashion (wouldn't be the first time), in which case I'll happily self-revert this. But with only two of us involved it's 50-50 who's wrong on the policy, so some outside input would be appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be WP:UNDUE to cover an aspect that is only treated by the film itself and not by an outside source? The film itself might be a RS for its own contents (OR issues aside over force usage, but probably reliable for say, a credit list) - but why would we be covering some aspect (of a highly popular and well covered film) that no else is talking about?Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: It's not that no one else is covering it; it's that the content is included in the plot summary and plot summaries for films apparently aren't supposed to include citations of secondary sources. (At least, this is how MOS:FILM is often interpreted.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The film itself would be a primary source; which requires very careful use as it may easily lead to over-interpretation. What Oknazevad is doing is interpreting the primary source and thus synthesizing conclusions from it. It is therefor not so much a reliable source issue but an original research issue that is the problem here in my view. Arnoutf (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Arnoutf: Yeah, that's what I said, but I wound up tagging the article with a "needs a non-primary source" tag rather than an "original research" tag, since I honestly believe Oknazevad's OR is accurate and could be verified in a secondary source. I don't think it belongs in the plot summary as an excessive detail, but that's a formality. And the tag I chose was what led me here rather than NORN like I originally hinted Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes a film plot is an RS for what it explicitly says (Such as Leia loves Han). Anything that need extrapolation or interpretation is OR unless performed by an outside RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that should pretty much settle it then, I think. @Oknazevad: Whaddya think? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I still think it's explicit, not extrapolation, even if it's visual, not verbal. oknazevad (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The demands on OR in particular on synthesis wp:synth are pretty strong (and for good reasons). From the description there could also be divine intervention saving Leia, or that by some other unlikely happenstance the destruction of the bridge did not kill her. Unlikely? Yes extremely so. Impossible - not necessarily unless the actual words "saved by the force" are spoken by a voice over (even Leia herself claiming later that she was saved by use of the force should be reported as "Leia claimed she was saved by her use of the force" to avoid synthesis). So yes - interpreting posture, music scores and even claims by characters are simply not enough for a primary source to draw a conclusion without it being original research. Arnoutf (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Tasnim News Agency WP:RS? Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Just by looking at the Wiki page, I would say no. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The wiki page is Tasnim News Agency, but what do you want to use them as a reference for? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I can not really think of a situation where I would consider this source reliable, but I thought other editors might have further information.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Reliability is not an absolute concept and nearly always one needs to say the article where the source is going to be used along with the content. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Well specifically for photos of Palestinian protests after the US recognized Jerusalem - even American papers use stock photos often these days. I recently read a story about it, they just use related stock images that weren't necessarily taken that day, so I am skeptical of media sources for images like these. It is usually not a problem because they use services like Getty, but since Tasnim is CC license, these photos do surface in our articles from time to time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Tasnim is generally not reliable, with the exceptions of sourcing IRGC's (Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps) positions, other Iranian regime positions (when not in conflict with IRGC), and maybe/perhaps non-controversial topics (e.g. coverage of a national holiday).Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:So, are you questioning the reliability of the photos? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it looks photoshopped, and not very well. Cloth burns slowly, but these aren't cloth flags, it looks like very thin paper that is ripped in places. The fire is burning sideways, which is improbable especially since much of the paper flag appears to have burned away already. I get lighting one flag with one that is already burning, but it's not a flamethrower. Does this site state its photo credits? [[35] Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not exactly the perfect place for this, but...

Sources out there, including Time and Forbes, say that The Egypt govt. thinks that Hosni Mubarak may have 700 billion, making him far richer than the Walmarts or anyone else. Sounds like fiction to me.

His article doesn't have this but List of wealthiest families does, supported by good refs. That concerns me.

Please comment at Talk:Hosni Mubarak/Archive 1#Mubarak wealth so we can know what to do about that article and the place where this figure exists at Wikipedia, namely: List of wealthiest families.

For the record, I saw this 700b addition by an IP at List of wealthiest families and reverted. I then restored it because another editor said the sources were good. (I cannot check Forbes or Time because of the country I live in.)

Many thanks,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the way you changed it (back to $USD70B) is best. The $USD700B figure is likely inflated, since there's no corroboration. This article also calls the claims suspicious - can you read it where you are? [[36]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Would this thesis be considered a reliable third-party source please? Usually I would shy away from citing this, but there is useful information about his parents and why they emigrated, as well as the role played by the American Protective League during World War I, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:IRS sez "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." When you say "his" are you referring to the subject of the thesis or to its author? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Edward Bushrod Stahlman. I guess we can't cite it.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

If the article is about O'Brian himself, then this would fall under WP:SPS. The person's own master's thesis is reliable for information about himself/what he had to say. If the article is about Stahlman, then the clearest way to establish scholarly influence would be to see if the thesis has been cited in subsequent works: "Smith et al., Jones et al. and Ramachandran et al. cited this paper in articles published in Superreliable Journal, Also Good Journal and Even Better Journal, respectively." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Never mind.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be acceptable to tell the reader that this thesis exists and to point them towards it for further reading. If it is not acceptable in this case, when is it acceptable? (This question boils down to whether standards are higher for using such theses as a source, as opposed to including them in 'Further reading'?) To expand on this, if you look at the current sources for the article Edward Bushrod Stahlman, you have a site called the 'Tennessee Portrait Project', published by The National Society of The Colonial Dames of America in the State of Tennessee. It is not clear from the website how the researchers on this project can be considered authorities on the subjects of the portraits (mostly, they wouldn't be). It depends what sources they are using (if they don't name their sources, that is not a good start). Then you have four (mostly) primary sources that are obituaries published about the subject of the article, published back in 1930. The final source is 'The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture', which is reliable but doesn't have an article directly on E. B. Stahlman (though it does on his grandson). Then you have this master's thesis, submitted in 1996. It is a substantial work, it names its sources. It states early on that "scholars have yet to do a full examination of Stahlman the man" and that "doing research on Stahlman is difficult". It is clear that this thesis is one of the best resources out there for those wanting to know more about E. B. Stahlman. It should be common sense to point the readers of Wikipedia towards this resource, and to either use it as a source or as a guide to finding more sources to use in the article (if this latter approach is taken, it would be ethical to credit the author of the thesis who collated these sources in his thesis). Having said that, the subject of the article is mentioned in a number of printed books that are reliable sources, so there are many sources not yet used that can be used for this article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable to use in this context. Neutrality^talk 01:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/how-self-flying-sleighs
• http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/algorithms-in-the-north-pole
• http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/santa-claus-makes-it-big-with-bitcoin
• http://www.horizons.gc.ca/en/content/santa-is-moving-to-the-south-pole

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That's enough egg nog for you, Mr. Macon. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#RfC: Nonbinding advisory RfC concerning financial support for The Internet Archive --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Are Votesmart and Ourcampaigns reliable sources please? The first one is run by Project Vote Smart, so I would say yes. The second one is murkier, yet it is used in many articles...Zigzig20s (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going with Votesmart.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

There are many notable news publications called "The Independent", as shown in The Independent (disambiguation). Singapore's http://www.theindependent.sg isn't on there, probably for good reason, but I wanted to get an assessment from the community.

This appears to be a blog disguised as a news outlet. It's cited in many articles here. As indicated by the http://www.theindependent.sg/about-us/ page, it's basically a one-man show similar to The Online Citizen which was reviewed here some time ago and deemed untrustworthy questionable. The articles don't have authors or bylines listed on them. Basically it looks like the site is run by blogging software.

Hopefully a Singaporean editor is looking at this and can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong: My understanding is that there are actually only two licensed news organizations in Singapore: Mediacorp and Singapore Press Holdings, who run several notable news outlets like TODAY, Channel NewsAsia, AsiaOne, The Straits Times, The New Paper, Business Times, and some local-language newspapers. Neither theindependent.sg nor theonlinecitizen.com appear to be bona-fide news sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Per the instructions, you need to provide the content it is used to support. Please do so. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be all the content cited in this list. The question is, is this a blog to be avoided, or a reliable source to be cited?

But sure, here are examples:

• Lead sentence in International Commission Against the Death Penalty, appears to be cited redundantly for the purpose of refspam.
• Editorial opinion comparing Premiership of Narendra Modi in India with Singapore's former PM Lee Kuan Yew. Why does that matter?
• Exact same editorial opinion and quotation in 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation. More refspam?
• A claim that the movie poster of Faeryville was banned in Malaysia, without any corroborating news sources that I can find.

My involvement in the Calvin Cheng article led me to start examining sources that were cited, and The Independent struck me as suspicious due to the lack of author bylines. For the most part I don't see The Independent as being used as the sole citation for anything particularly controversial. It does seem to be an honest attempt at a news service by a small handful of people. I am concerned though, about how it's being used redundantly and unnecessarily, suggesting that there may have been some attempts in the past to use Wikipedia for SEO purposes.

It doesn't really have a staff, and I can't find an indication of its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I surmise that it's being used as a trusted source mostly due to name recognition, having the same name as an unrelated notable British newspaper. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed points 1-3 easily by removing REFSPAM and UNDUE content. Your query regarding point 4 can easily be found here[37]. As per noticeboard instruction, please provide a diff on the content that you are challenging for reliability on Calvin Cheng article. It is disingenuous to discredit a source because of actions by some editors. As an admin, you got to do better than that. Also, Singapore's mainstream media has been called out for biased reporting, self-censorship and acting as government's mouthpiece. Reliability depends on context. Jane Dawson (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My, aren't we testy. I am questioning the reliability of the source in general. As an experienced editor, it is disingenuous for you to presume to know the mind of other editors. You should know better, particularly since I have not challenged the source as used in that article. And your assumption of bad faith is rather tiresome; you have to do better than that. The fact is, in going through the Calvin Cheng article and checking out sources, this one struck me as rather bloggish, basically self-published. That is what I am asking about here. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on the reliability of the source in general here[38]. Perhaps you can participate in that discussion to make better sense of Singapore's media situation? Jane Dawson (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That old discussion that devolved into sniping about sockpuppetry? No, the proper place to determine overall reliability of a source is on this noticeboard, not on a specific article talk page. Now, does anyone care to address the concerns I have raised about this source appearing to be a self-published blog, albeit a sophisticated one?

Oh, and by the way, the four examples above where just four of dozens. I'm seeing articles that look legitimate with no byline on a blog site, often redundantly cited or with no corroboration. And point 4 has not been addressed by the source you provided; the censorship board "requested a change" which is not the same as "banned" as reported in The Independent. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As the OP noted, they appear to be questioning the independent due to its use in the following two places in the Calvin Cheng article:

Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his outspoken views^[1] and for his personal attacks against people with whom he disagrees.^[2][3]

and

In March 2017, a U.S. judge granted Yee political asylum in the United States, citing the different ways that Cheng and Yee had been treated.^[4]

In both of those instances, it used to provide the primary sources being discussed. I don't think there is any doubt that Cheng wrote what he wrote, or that the judge ruled as he did. The Independent is reliable for both of these uses. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree... it just seems strange that we have only that bloggy non-byline source for this sort of thing. And in a BLP no less. Is there not anything better for corroboration? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The world of Singapore media is highly controlled. As I said in my AfD vote, Cheng is a medium fish in a small pond. If we look at what international, independent RS say about him, we should probably not have an article at all. To the extent we are restricted to the world of Singapore media (and since we decided to keep this article, we are), unless we want to have a propaganda piece we have to deal with the media landscape there, which means using what refs we have, as wisely as we can. If you look at what all the refs say, he is a minor businessman, mostly in entertainment, who supports PAP which supports him back, and who got involved in some price fixing stuff and shoots his mouth off on social media. This is not complicated. What makes it ... difficult is that people representing him have been trying to control his image through Wikipedia for ten years, which keeps wasting our time having the same conversations over and over and over and over. We had this exact discussion at BLPN a couple of weeks ago. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Back to the point of wether it's reliable, I went to cross check some info on the MRT and found that they barely provide facts and in fact is mostly personal opinion. Most of their citations are from social media, which is unreliable. However, it did not strike me as a blog, and I'll rather refer to it as an unreliable unofficial news source, hence should not be used unless the page that is being cited from has reliable sources backing it up. -1.02 editor (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering the press freedom in Singapore, the independent is an alternative news source not owned or affiliated to a government linked entity. However, it is registered with the Singapore government's Media Development Authority. We usually determine whether sources are reliable for the content. In the specific content above, it is no doubt reliable.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)