Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241


The Daily Wire

I have seen some disagreement on whether The Daily Wire is a RS and when it should be used. I want to clarify here whether TDW is a RS in order to use it in BLPs. On Joss Whedon, the article says In April 2018, Whedon expressed on Twitter that he wanted President Donald Trump to "Die...Just Quietly Die." which is sourced to Emily Zanotti at TDW. The authors at TDW are experienced, confirmed by a LinkedIn spot check I made, and they commonly write for well established RSes. However, TDW does not publish an editorial policy; I only found this. I tried to find RSes discussing TDW.

Here are some WP:USEBYOTHERS: Al Arabiya (huge chunk of article), Fox News (a tiny section), SF Gate (minor), Newsweek (major story; this also by NY Daily News, WaPo and wgntv), PolitiFact (a fact-checking organization!), National Review (small), National Review (big), National Review (small), Miami Herald (whole article), WaPo (among others), National Review (small), Philly (an interview, this demonstrates TDW as a reliable secondary source), Forbes (small but takes TDW reporting pretty much as fact), CJR (builds upon TDW), News.com.au (TDW was first to publish a screenshot on which a story was based), Village Voice (small and/or minor), National Review (small), Fox News (interview; big), Newsweek (twice and small), The New York Times.

I couldn't find many other RS on TDW reporting, here are those I found: Independent (only about random Twitter users criticizing TDW), The New York Times (not really citing a fact published on TDW, but discussing some other aspects of its reporting; there are some other NY Times articles mentioning TDW)

TDW is a blog-styled news website, which passes WP:NEWSBLOG, so that is not a concern. Of course we should also take care about opinions published on TDW. Note that this is about the TDW website, not the podcasts associated with it. wumbolo ^^^ 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Daily Wire should never be cited. The site regularly publishes false and misleading stories. If a story on the Daily Wire is notable and accurate, it should be substantiated by secondary coverage. The editor-in-chief and founder of the Daily Wire is the former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News, a website renowned for publishing hoaxes, conspiracy theories and falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
So we should just ignore the WP:USEBYOTHERS mentioned above? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a good question because OP suggests that all those links up there substantiate that DW stories are used as facts by other news outlets. But the links don't really show that at all. I checked a few (I don't have time to check them all):
Al Arabiya (a news outlet of dubious reliability?): The story cites a Daily Wire report which itself cited an Associated Press exclusive[1]. There's nothing in the DW story that's not in the AP story. Whoever wrote the Al Arabiya story is a bad journalist.
Fox News: it‘s just a story about Ben Shapiro.
SF Gate: The Daily Wire posted a clip from a CNN segment. SF Gate notes that the Daily Wire uploaded it.
Newsweek: It‘s a story about how Laura Ingraham shared a Daily wire story about David Hogg getting college applications rejected (Hogg posted about it on his public social media accounts originally). The story is about Laura Ingraham attacking Hogg.
PolitiFact: PF cites Daily Wire‘s compilation of instances where Trump falsely accused the Cruz campaign of cheating. PolitiFact assessed the claim Trump had accused Cruz of cheating in all those instances as half-true ("The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.")
(edit conflict) @Snooganssnoogans: Thanks for the comments. I don't know about unreliability because I was using our WP:ADVANCED RS search engine. I am crossing out the AA story and SF Gate from my original post. Regarding Fox News, I was referring to Shapiro’s news website published videos earlier this week of protesters who called him the “founder” of “this fascist ideological regime.” Regarding Newsweek, the whole big story started out by Ingraham sharing the TDW story on Twitter. That story is about Hogg's college admissions. Newsweek acknowledged that TDW published the names of the colleges and basically used it as fact: Ingraham shared a Daily Wire story on Wednesday, writing that Hogg had been rejected by four colleges... You took PolitiFact out of context: the PolitiFact entry doesn't talk exclusively about The Daily Wire, and when it does talk about TDW, it immediately cites it as fact, verifies it using other PolitiFact articles and still uses TDW as fact. wumbolo ^^^ 20:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
CJR: In a long-piece about the alt-right, CJR asked Ben Shapiro (a former Breitbart - "home of the alt-right" - editor) a question about the alt-right.
NY Times 1: DW got a bunch of facebook likes for a story about Doritos.
NY Times 2: A one-sentence quote by Ben Shapiro in an NYT article about how the left and the right reacted to Trump's attempted firing of Robert Mueller.
@Snooganssnoogans: striking out CJR and NYT1. wumbolo ^^^ 20:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
So, reporting by DW is not cited as fact by other reliable sources. The links above are mostly just mentions of DW and Ben Shapiro by other reliable sources. It's similar to how sources like Gateway Pundit and Breitbart are frequently mentioned by reliable sources but never as a source of factual accuracy. DW and Ben Shapiro are notable figures in the rightwing media and are influential in conservative circles, but it's not a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: It wasn't the Daily Wire EIC who started the hoaxes on Breitbart, it was Steve Bannon, and also absolutely not Andrew Breitbart himself. wumbolo ^^^ 20:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Non RS: Lacks reputation for accuracy and fact-checking; I would avoid it for BLP matters. If material is noteworthy, I'm sure it would be covered in better sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Use with caution but not a blanket ban. I don't see anything that says it lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Anyhow, news sites like Breitbart, Daily Caller, Daily Beast, Vox, Huffington Post, The Daily Wire ...etc all have to be used with caution as they all have inherent biases. Ben Shapiro appears on CNN regularly so if he were such a fabricator, I don't think they would invite him. Clearly if the Daily Wire conducts an interview, that would be legitimate as a source. If there is something more partisan, then we have to weigh if it is important enough and if the source adds something different. If it is, one should state "according to xxxx writing for conservative-leaning Daily Wire that...." Unfortunately in this day and age, all our mainstream publications have biases (generally in what facts they leave out) and we need the more partisan sources like Vox and Daily Wire to keep them in check.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Off-topic, but what exactly is the reason for implying that Vox and The Daily Beast are "biased" and "partisan"? This thread is starting to come up on other pages now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Did you just suggest that Breitbart can *ever* be a source, subject only to the caution that it has inherent bias and must be treated warily? It may once have been so, when Andrew was alive, but in recent years I would have lumped it with sites like Infowars and (again, in recent years) Fox News as the antithesis of a reliable source.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Sticking Fox News into the same category as Daily Mail is not true to what RS means, Simon. Fox News, to this day, is considered by consensus (at multiple RfCs) to be a RS for anything but it's political opinion articles.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
        • WP:RS says that a reliable source is one that (inter alia) has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If Fox News (as it exists today, not as it might arguably have existed before 2016) meets that standard, then words have no meaning. And if there were any good-faith dispute on Fox's reputation, WP:USEBYOTHERS bangs a lot of nails into its the coffin. And, by contrast, as clearly as the RS standard doesn't fit Fox, WP:QS fits it like a glove: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts...or have an apparent conflict of interest." Fox News is not now (if it ever was) a reliable source. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not RS for anything other than its own opinion in its own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: what did you mean here by saying that The Daily Wire is an "extremist website" ? wumbolo ^^^ 23:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Avoid - Has no reputation for reliability, fact-checking and accuracy. That its editor is a Breitbart castoff is troubling; that its content is largely Trumpist apologia is telling. May be useful for including the opinions of Trumpist supporters but should never be used as a source for factual claims about those whom it politically opposes. (Just like Media Matters. In general, we should avoid using hyperpartisan outlets of this nature for claims of fact.)NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: actually The Daily Wire is very anti-Trump. It is very disingenuous to compare Shapiro to Breitbart, as Shapiro quit Breitbart himself because of Steve Bannon, who called the site his alt-right platform, and Shapiro is one of the alt-right's top targets. wumbolo ^^^ 08:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I recommend that you read this: How Breitbart Destroyed Andrew Breitbart's Legacy by Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic. wumbolo ^^^ 15:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder everyone this discussion about The Daily Wire, not Shapiro, Breitbart, Bannon, or Trump. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Use with caution: Clearly a very opinionated source that would be considered on a case by case basis but it shouldn't be excluded outright. Springee (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Reliable, but partisan - if we cast out partisan outlets, we would be left with hardly any sources at all. There is no indication they are unreliable, and it seems they have a regular editorial process. Political lean is not how we determine RS. A very loose former association with other outlets (guilt by association) is not an issue either.Icewhiz (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
" There is no indication they are unreliable". Daily Wire regularly publishes of climate change denial rubbish[2] (you can see experts debunk DW articles here[3]) and promotes the same myths about voter fraud[4] that are frequently debunked by actual reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: Fox News also regularly publishes "climate change denial rubbish". wumbolo ^^^ 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Which isn't a reliable source (if it ever was, it isn't now), but even if it were, the argument "some other source fails RS, therefore this source passes RS" doesn't work.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Which does not reflect well on Fox News. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not discussing Fox News here but the TDW. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Climate has unfortunately become a partisan issue (we're doomed on Guardian is an interesting read) - reporting on studies does not make an outlet unreliable. Had there been an incident in which the outlet itself falsified reporting it would be a different matter - however nothing like that has been indicated by anyone here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
'Reporting on studies'? No. Misinterpreting and twisting studies?[5] That's not what RS do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Is climatefeedback.org (I tried to poke around the website a bit to their about - but seems it stopped functioning - seems a bit advocatish) - a RS?Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It's run by University of California Merced’s Center for Climate Communication and is literally just panels of experts reviewing articles related to climate change. See this[6] for an example. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a FactCheck.org article which found that DW was the source of a falsehood[7]. Snopes says "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified," and then mentions some examples of false DW stories.[8] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I wouldn't trust something a fact checker says below it falsely accusing of TDW publishing a false story, if the fact checker in that article is incompetent of differentiating "different transliteration of the same name" and "different name derived from the same Latin/Greek word". wumbolo ^^^ 14:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A partisan but generally reliable source. I know of no media sources that are perfectly reliable (remember when the New York Times got us into a war by stating that weapons of mass destruction were...?).E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
One news outlet got a story wrong once, therefore all news outlets are equally reliable? One scientist had a paper retracted from a prestigious journal, therefore Nature is equally reliable as Answers in Genesis? I did not realize that WP:RS required perfect accuracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It is not collegial to distort a fellow editor's comment. For the record, I regard newspapers and academic journals as arrayed along a spectrum. Leaving aside the fact that I cannot think of a single significant news outlet - broadcast or print - that is without a POV. And the fact that we humans tend to perceive the biased inaccuracies more readily in n material written form a perspective that we disagree with. It is a fact that even the most reliable sources sometimes publish bad facts and all also sometimes publish material that - although accurate - presents material from a perspective that is so limited or so distorted is untrue. There are, of course, sources that are so routinely and/pr deliberately inaccurate that I dismiss them out of hand. But while The Wire is not at the same end of the spectrum as The New Yorker, The Atlantic, or Nature, neither is can it be disqualified as unreliable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: the Joss Whedon tweet is probably not a WP:RS issue (anyone can verify it), but a WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLPSTYLE issue. As for the broader question of whether TDW is a RS in order to use it in BLPs, that's really outside the scope of this noticeboard. We do not have a list of quote-unquote "reliable" sources , since reliability depends on context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Daily Wire is clearly a WP:RS. If in doubt because of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, then use with caution, but the same WP:RSCONTEXT applies to State-Sponsored media such as the BBC and to left-of-center media such as MSNBC, both of which are regularly cited on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It is mind-boggling that anyone could compare the "Daily Wire" to the BBC. That's a pretty bizarre opinion. Neutralitytalk 03:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Avoid/Rarely RS - Definitely does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The problem isn't that it has an obvious political leaning, it's that it skews stories, publishes inaccuracies, and uses misleading headlines (whether that's in order to bend things towards a particular political perspective is secondary). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Avoid. It clearly doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy; most of the coverage treats it as Ben Shapiro's blog and a mouthpiece for his opinions rather than a news source. I also don't agree that WP:NEWSBLOG applies; that policy is for blogs that are run as a subsection of an otherwise-reputable news source, or for blogs that otherwise structure themselves as a formal news organization and which are therefore subject to rigorous fact-checking and accuracy constraints. While the blog publishing format is not itself automatically disqualifying, the fact that it seems to have a personal blog's level of fact-checking - ie. essentially none - certainly is disqualifying. Notably, outside of Shapiro's position as s editor-in-chief (which I couldn't actually find mentioned on the site itself, only in secondary sources that just seem to be using to mean "in charge"), it seems to have no formal editorial process, just a bunch of independent authors Shapiro invites to write there - digging deeper, I think it actually has no fact-checking whatsoever? As in, it doesn't even have any bare-bones efforts to ensure accuracy or apply editorial controls (which are, obviously, the things that a news source derives its status as a WP:RS news source from.) As near as I can tell, it's simply the personal blog for a bunch of high-profile people on the right, who independently post their opinions and collect news stories from news sites that interest them. That puts it under WP:SPS, if a high-profile one - it can be cited very cautiously for opinions, with inline citations, as long as those make no claims about living people and provided that that opinion is WP:DUE, but I don't think it can ever be used for anything else. --Aquillion (talk)
  • Comment. The media in the last 20-20 years has changed enormously. The media is just fighting for its survival (there are tons of reference, a high number of studies and we are living it, isn't it?). Yesterday, I was translating a fragment from a book need for a Wikipedia Afd. The study's result was that geographic location, cultural background and, of course, the money flow into into virtually anything created over time a huge gap between let's say NyTimes (it's just an example, I have no idea about their financial background however, I'm sure it's super solid) and another piece of media (let's say XYZ News), perceived decent. Now, which the two examples it's more prone to alter their content, accept paid content and all that stuff we see as non ethical. Yes, It is non-ethincal. But, you all know how it works. The factor forces institutions or anything else to set apart one from the other. The same it's applicable to companies, hospitals and even, unfortunately cancer related centers :'‑( I've had an experience and I felt the frustration on my own skin. I was diagnosed with stage II colon cancer 10 years ago, when I was 28. The low budget cancer center visited were promising me that everything is fine but I haven't felt that they really care, it was like I wouldn't even exist. I visited than a few higher, privately held cancer centers. They've been super bold to me, explained me every risk, told me to NOT to google about it at all (but of course I did and based on what I read I was already prepared to die, literally). They presented me the best available options they could offer. I picked the second one, for obvious reasons. And here I am. So, it's very hard to take a decision knowing this. Of course Daily Wire shouldn't be used for BLP (or only with very high caution). Robert G. (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Daily Wire has a history of publishing false and misleading material. It would show incredibly poor editorial judgement to treat it as a reliable source for anything remotely controversial. MastCell Talk 19:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@MastCell: actually, most sources have a comparable history. Per WP:NEWSORG, One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. TDW has always timely published appropriate corrections, when it reported false or misleading content. wumbolo ^^^ 19:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually... no. Most reliable sources do not have a comparable history of repeatedly publishing partisan falsehoods. The Wire "has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified", which makes it pretty much the exact opposite of a reliable source. Corrections are one component of reliability, but not the only one. If you seriously think that the Daily Wire and (say) the New York Times are comparably reliable because they both publish corrections, then there is a serious competency issue here. And if I, as an admin, saw someone using this site as a "reliable source" for controversial material (or especially for anything touching on a BLP), then I'd take that pretty seriously. MastCell Talk 22:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Avoid. Generic partisan hack website, not a news organisation. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable: primarily based on the credentials of Joss Whedon. In general Daily Wire is a reliable source but admittedly does not have the reputation of the NY Times. Just because it is a partisan source does not disqualify it out of hand. In fact WP:BIASED says: " Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information." – Lionel(talk) 02:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"Joseph Hill Whedon (/ˈhwiːdən/; born June 23, 1964) is an American screenwriter, director, producer, comic book writer, and composer." And that makes him a credentialled journalist... how, exactly? Guy (Help!) 19:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"By the media" qualification

The only real RSN relevant question is whether media sources are RS for this; that isn't really being discussed. This really should be discussed on the talk page of the article/in an RfC there, or on WP:NPOVN Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this sentence from AR-15 style rifle, does the phrase "widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" need to be attributed with a qualifier such as "by the media" or "in the media"?

While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns,[1][2][3] AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[1] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized by the media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] AR-15 variants have been used in mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[13] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[14] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[14] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[15]


References

  1. ^ a b "In Many U.S. States, 18 Is Old Enough to Buy a Semiautomatic". CBS News. The Associated Press. February 16, 2018. Retrieved February 19, 2018. On average, more than 13,000 people are killed each year in the United States by guns, and most of those incidents involve handguns while a tiny fraction involve an AR-style firearm. Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings... 
  2. ^ "Expanded Homicide Data Table 4". 2016 Crime in the United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 2018-02-26. 
  3. ^ Balko, Radley (2013-07-09). Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. PublicAffairs. ISBN 9781610392129. 
  4. ^ Smith, Aaron (June 21, 2016). "Why the AR-15 is the mass shooter's go-to weapon". CNN. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers. 
  5. ^ Picchi, Aimee (June 15, 2016). "America's rifle: The marketing of assault-style weapons". CBS MoneyWatch. CBS News. Retrieved February 23, 2018. America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers. 
  6. ^ Zhang, Sarah (June 17, 2016). "What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body". Wired. Retrieved March 3, 2018. The AR-15 is America’s most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino. 
  7. ^ Williams, Joseph P. (November 7, 2017). "How the AR-15 Became One of the Most Popular Guns in America, A brief history of the guns that have become the weapons of choice for mass shootings". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved February 15, 2018. They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly. 
  8. ^ Jansen, Bart; Cummings, William (November 6, 2017). "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s". USA Today. Retrieved February 15, 2018. AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. 
  9. ^ Oppel Jr., Richard A. (February 15, 2018). "In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun". The New York Times. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers. 
  10. ^ Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018). "Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters". ABC News. Retrieved March 2, 2018. AR-15-style rifles have become something of a weapon of choice for mass shooters. 
  11. ^ Beckett, Lois (February 16, 2018). "Most Americans can buy an AR-15 rifle before they can buy beer". The Guardian. Retrieved March 2, 2018. While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America’s most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence. 
  12. ^ Samis, Max (April 22, 2018). "Brady Campaign Responds to Developments in Nashville Waffle House Shooting". Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Retrieved May 4, 2018. Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, 'It adds insult to the literal injuries and loss of life suffered by today's victims that even though the killer was known to be too dangerous to have guns, his father chose to rearm him including, reportedly, with the AR-15 used this morning, a weapon of war that now happens to be the weapon of choice in far too many mass killings in America.' 
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYT 13 June 2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b "Why the AR-15 keeps appearing at America's deadliest mass shootings". USA Today. Retrieved 22 February 2018. 
  15. ^ Shapiro, Emily (February 14, 2018). "At least 17 dead in 'horrific' Florida school shooting, suspect had 'countless magazines'". ABC News. Archived from the original on February 15, 2018. Retrieved February 15, 2018. 

Relevant talk page discussions: [9] (Active), [10] [11]

Discussion

I would say not, is it only characterized as such by the media? Here is a clue, one of the sources is not a media organisation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Per the sources provided, the label "weapon of choice" is applied by the media and by gun control groups that advocate bans related to such weapons. The label is not applied by experts such as criminologists nor sources such as the FBI. As a contentious label the best solution would be to sidestep the issue and avoid it per wp:label. It's use isn't encyclopedic and replacing with a less contentious label doesn't negatively impact the article. Springee (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The exact words in the reference given from there claimed experts were "In some mass shootings", don't see how you could assert "weapon of choice" from that. This distction is only stated by the media. -72bikers (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Do the FBI or criminologists not say this, sources. And we are not saying this is a fact, we are saying it is an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
If the FBI or criminologists dispute this characterization, find some reliable sources that say so and add that to the article. As for gun control groups, they are of course rather well-informed on the use of guns in crimes. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Wait what, are you asking that we find a expert that contradicts your non-existing expert support? -72bikers (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Found it, its in your chosen expert support reference that clearly states "In some mass shootings". -72bikers (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)]
"The label is not applied by experts such as criminologists nor sources such as the FBI."that is what we are asking for a source to back up.Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ohh and according to other sources "is the weapon of choice for mass killers.", so lets not pretend they all say the same thing. This is about RS, RS use the term "is the weapon of choice for mass killers." (or variants of). This is not the NPOV or Fringe notice board. RS say it so we can say RS say it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding "by the media" violates NPOV in this context, because in this context "the media" have been presented as an enemy of guns and as biased against them. Furthermore, I cannot think of any way to establish that something has been "widely characterized" in some way other than by referencing articles in the media that make that characterization - so there is no need to say "by the media", especially considering the sources are listed right there. Lastly, the implication here is that "the media" is making something up on its own rather than reporting facts or the opinions of sources. Media articles are considered per wikipedia policy as reliable secondary sources. Treating these sources otherwise violates WP policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding "by the media" is redundant and unnecessary. Also, it's wrong; see this piece that's marshalling arguments in favor of your local police department buying some, precisely because this class of rifle is the "weapon of choice" (who are aiming at law enforcement as well as civilians). This article draws a distinction between terrorist attacks and fatal ones, and the significantly increased chance of dying means that these high-power rifles are responsible for a higher than average number of deaths (as opposed to injuries). I think, though, that some of the people who are concerned by this statement might want to read weapon of choice (and maybe to link to that article). This characterization is about the iconic nature of the weapon in popular culture, rather than the actual statistical use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This is were careful reading of sources is needed. That source doesn't say AR-15 or mass shooters. Saying by the media is important if the experts in the field don't make the same claim. Again per WP:label we should just side step the issue and drop the label. Springee (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not a label. And yes some of the sources do say it. "AR-15-style rifles have become something of a weapon of choice for mass shooters."Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for making the point. In the quoted sentence "weapon of choice" is a label and it is used as such in the article. Also, as was me≈ntioned before it's not the experts but the reporters who are applying the label as in your sentence. Springee (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
No it is not, they did not say" AR-15 weapon of choice" they say "has become something of a". They are not using it as a label. Also it is not only the media, it is just that they (rather then blogs or oped pieces) are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Repeating that it isn't a label doesn't make it not a label. Also, the media is a RS for reporting, not assigning labels that aren't supported by experts in the field. Springee (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
We are not assigning it a label, we are calling it an opinion (well characterization). This thread is now all over the place, what are we talking about? And is not about RS, but weight and POV. I can see no point to this, so can this now be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We have a number of reliable sources that have analyzed the facts and made a statement, and a number of Wikipedia editors who have done their own analysis and come to a different conclusion than the RS. In this case the RS analysis would have priority. "By the media" is an unnecessary qualifier and seems to be an attempt to discredit the statement. –dlthewave 22:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
We also have RS that disagree. Furthermore, it is reasonable to question if those sources are reliable for the label in question. Again we have to note that the experts in the field, the reporters aren't we experts in this area, don't make the claim. The reporters who make the claim are typically advocating thus acting as opinion writers or citing what others have said. The best way to deal with this is sidestep the issue by removing the controversial label. Springee (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
And thus we would include the rebuttal (assuming we do not, and have they actually denied it is a widely held view), not that any RS have been represented here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
We have reliable sources that disagree that AR-15s are widely characterized that way? Really? As for whether major media outlets are RS, of course they are. In questioning that you're either engaging in OR ("Normally they would be, but in this case...") or just going against wiki policy. Waleswatcher (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, this discussion is occurring both here and on the article talk page. Anyway, the label is contentious and this shouldn't be used. It's inaccurate as RSs have illustrated. It is applied rather indiscriminately both to "assault weapons" (a very nebulous term that can include things like Olympic target pistols) and to the AR-15 (typically but not always a subset of "assault weapons" depending on definition). Yes, we have shown that a number of non-experts have applied the label. We also have similar quality sources saying the label is wrong (and offering rational to boot). I'm proposing that we just dump the label. Springee (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur that the label should not be used. It was only shown to be used by the media, that was not shown to be a quote by any expert. Also sources were shown to dispute this lable. In fact the expert they had put forth clearly only stated "In some mass shootings". So making this claim is misleading the readers, especially without any context. -72bikers (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "We also have RS that disagree." Well, post them? This is WP:RSN, so evaluating the relative worth of your sources vs. the ones above is probably the best way to go about it. And you do have to produce them - my feeling is that if we have a lot of WP:RSes saying something, and no reliable sources contradicting them, we can just report it as fact; rewriting it to imply that it is somehow dubious would be editorializing on our part, and omitting it is clearly not an option when it is so well-source. But if you have sources specifically disputing that description, we can cover those as well, and we can use those sources to outline the locus of the dispute. Looking over your comments above, though, you've repeatedly asserted that it's controversial, but haven't presented the sources you say support that interpretation, while we seem to have a huge number of mainstream, high-quality reliable sources using the term with no indication that it is controversial or disputed. Based on those, we have to similarly treat it as an uncontroversial statement of fact unless you can produce some similar high-quality mainstream WP:RS sources either disputing it or, at the very least, describing such a dispute. (If all you can find is some less mainstream sources, they could still be included, but it would have to be worded along the lines of "this is the general way it is described, which these people dissent from, saying [other position]." Blogs and opinion pieces, though, obviously wouldn't be enough when most of the sources here are mainstream news coverage that we can cite for statements of fact.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please refer to the article talk page where the discussion continued Springee (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I would ask that we keep the discussion on this page. I brought this to RSN to solicit wider input and it's confusing to move it back to article talk mid-thread. –dlthewave 04:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Since we are working on proposed solution on the talk page the primary discussion is occurring there. This discussion isn't getting outside eyes so let's put our efforts into a compromise solution. Springee (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
But the question of whether the sources you say indicate that the term is controversial are reliable is of central importance; so I'm confused why you keep vaguely alluding to them here without specifically presenting them so we can get additional eyes judging whether they're good enough. (After reading the talk page, I think I know what sources you want to use and I think they obviously don't pass WP:RS for what you're trying to say.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to try to make your case there. Springee (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not attribute to the media -- sufficient sources to substantiate this characterisation. Here's another one: How the AK-47 and AR-15 Evolved Into Rifles of Choice for Mass Shootings, NY Times, by C.J. Chivers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The NYT has a strong anti-2nd A bias. Regardless, the characterization is clearly disputed by a number of sources Reason (more than once), Washpost[[12]], National Review [[13]], simple stats [[14]], WashPost again but in a more round about way (9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon) [[15]], Washington Examiner, specifically noting "media hype about mass shootings" stating handguns, not 'assault rifles' used most [[16]]. Basically many sources repeat the claim but we can not take it as reliable and uncontested. Furthermore, we need to remember that it isn't an expert in the area that is making the claim, it's reporters. I've proposed a compromise solution on at the article talk page. We keep don't state who is making the label claim but rather we follow the claim with a sentence stating the claim is disputed by others. That way the reader can understand this isn't a universally accepted claim. Springee (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The NYT has a strong anti-2nd A bias - ?? Regardless, the WaPo piece by Michael S. Rosenwald is out of date: June 16, 2016 was before Parkland, Waffle House shooting, Las Vegas, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the NYT has an anti gun bias. Here is one example [[17]], [[18]]. The WP article is in agreement with the other newer articles. Furthermore, the reason why the many sources disagree with the "weapon of choice" claim is consistent, the numbers don't support the claim. Are you saying that has changed in the last two years? Do you have data to support that? So if 2016 is out of date what is the cut off? Do we exclude sources that support the claim if they aren't 2017 or later? Springee (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The data sources in the first WaPo link (the only RS - it's beyond me why editors bring a bunch of op-eds and non-RS to these discussions) is a CSR overview of the period 1999-2013 (and it's unclear whether AR-15 usage changed over the period) and a study from 2012 which refers to the period 1982-2012 (it's unclear in the study whether AR-15 changed over the period - the author relies on Mother Jones data). Most of the RS cited for the contested 'weapon of choice' refer to this as a recent phenomena, so the CSR overview and the 2012 study that are cited in that WaPo piece aren't really on-point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Based on what other than your opinion? Conversely, why aren't the claims of "weapon of choice" also opinion, except in cases were the reporter is effectively saying it was the weapon used. Springee (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
You're saying that RS contradict the assessment of RS that the AR-15 is a weapon of choice in recent mass shooting. The RS that you cited don't contradict that, and I explained why. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not attribute to media - Reporters are experts at reporting, even if they are not experts in the subject area (which in this case also includes fields such as sociology, not just firearms/criminology). The sources provided are highly reputable and unlikely to be rejected as unreliable. If there is another significant viewpoint, we can present it in proportion to its prominence per WP:WEIGHT. –dlthewave 04:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Reporters aren't phycologist, criminologists or otherwise experts in the areas that could soundly make such a claim. It's instead a catchy label. If the label were so sound why aren't we stating it in Wikipedia voice? No we are already attributing just not specifically. Either way, hopefully the compromise texts will solve the problem. Springee (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this assertion that reporters are unreliable because they are non-experts is coming from. We routinely use news reports as sources without vetting the qualifications of the author. We generally consider them competent to describe and characterize these events and topics under the umbrella of an organization that has a strong reputation for fact-checking. –dlthewave 12:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
In this case we have equally qualified sources that say the label is wrong. None of the sources are actually experts in the field, ie criminologists etc. Springee (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Do they say it is one made up by the media, or the media and other people?Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Did the reporters attribute the phrase to someone they interviewed or another source? Springee (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant. This is the RS noticeboard, we are here to judge if RS support a statement.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No, it's relevant. RSs say the label is wrong so we need to dig a bit deeper to ask who is actually applying the label. Springee (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
We do not judge the veracity of an RS's claim. We can (and should) include when a claim is contested. This is all very synthy and ORY, "but they are wrong, there are sources saying so, so we say who said it". No we say "X has said they are wrong". Now are you saying the sources that say "weapon of choice" are not RS if not then that "label" is irrelevant to your question (which was about inclusion of the word media). If your point is can you include the label "media" then you need as RS saying only the media have said this. So what is your point?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

By the media seems to be the most accurate representation of the sources given the lack of expert commentary on the subject. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

We do not attribute claims "to the media", as it is not some huge gestalt entity, do Fox news say this, or Breibant?Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
If we are going to bludgeon people with 9 sources making the claim who else would you state it to? I mean we could list each source but that would be silly and since experts are not making the claim it would not be attributed to them. It is clearly a controversial statement with in text attribution being a good idea. PackMecEng (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No one, if a view is that widely held then we do not need to attribute it. What you do is put both sides of the argument. It is really not that hard, especially as at least one of the sources provided in the article talk pages makes it clear it is not just the media (it may not be RS, but that is besides the point). It is not a fact that only the media have made this claim. But as I have said this is not really an RS issue, as no RS have been questioned here (only can someone engage in OR based upon the sources being used). Rather it is a POV question.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
It is widely held by a single group of non-experts so you specify the group and avoids adding POV by giving attribution to them. Not that hard, done all the time in controversial subjects. PackMecEng (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Except (as I have said) this is not so, it is not only held by that group.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
And others have disagreed with you on that premise, which I do as well. PackMecEng (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
[[19]], now to be fair it just says that "blame mass shootings on "assault weapons" ", but context make it clear what he means by that (weapon of choice, he even goes on to use the term). We have sources that say Weapon of choice in recent or many instances (or for "Grievance Killers"). In may forms that has been said by Gun Control advocates, politicians, the media, and god knows who else. It is simply to widely held an opinion to glibly assign to the media (or to be fair to not have a ore in depth statement about what the sources say, but I am not sure that "as a weapon of choice in many(source) if not all(source) the most recent mass shootings(source) or "grievance shootings (source)" is concise enough really). At the end of the day it is easier to just say what we do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Interesting blog post, I had not seen it before. Though it makes some of the same points I have been making as well. He mentions what gun control advocates say and counters with it by basically stating why it makes no sense given the statistics. Would you be more comfortable going with gun control advocates instead of by the media? PackMecEng (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
No, as he does not say that, and it is a label (Applied often by opponents of gun legislation). Either we say exactly who said it (according to what sources claim) or we do not label opinions we do not agree with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, you know, you've argued about this quite a bit (so have I) but at the article we've also been working to side step this issue by offering the opposing view vs for more detailed attribution in the text. Why not help create that language rather than just reiterate points that aren't convincing the other side of the discussion. Again I'm partially to blame since I reply to your comments but I've also proposed two alternate texts to address the issue. You said we should close this, well let's both step away and let it die. Springee (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, I will not respond where again unless addressed specifically, lets let this die.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding all judgements as to the specific topic entirely, the wording used seems to go beyond WP:NPOV with its use of "While" as an opening.

"Most gun killings in the United States are with handguns.[1][2][3] "AR-15 style" rifles have been used in a number of mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[13] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[14] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[14] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[15]

Would seem to avoid the "media" usage entirely, and be concise and accurate reflections of the sources cited. Absent a definition of "AR-15 style", I would think placing the term in quotation marks accurately reflects the sources. This opinion of mine applies uniformly - that concise wording is preferable to argumentative wording in any topic on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This is there ABC report that there expert states only that "In some mass shootings" [20]. That source clearly not only disputes there claim, but also supports that this label is just factually wrong. -72bikers (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. This wasn't the version that was agreed on at the article. The quote about "widely characterized" is POV. Just because some RS's (some with a POV) make the claim, we can't act like it's a fact. If I can find 10 sources that don't say it, why are they less valuable than 5 that do say it? This notion that just because a RS said it, we must repeat it is nonsense. And how can you include it and not attribute it to the media. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
    • You would need sources that explicitly disagree that this is true, not just sources that omit mentioning it. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really. If 5 sources called Justin Bieber the greatest female vocalist of all time, would we roll with that because there aren't many sources that don't specifically call JB the greatest female vocalist? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That is purely a matter of opinion, not something that Wikipedia would state as a fact in its own voice. At the most it would be "Justin Bieber has been widely hailed as..." —DIYeditor (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No attribution necessary if properly worded and reflected by the overwhelming majority of RSs on the topic. An analogous situation would be the Microsoft Windows article saying Windows is generally preferred to other operating systems by computer gamers, or the Manual transmission article saying manual has traditionally been preferred by sports car drivers - I made those examples up but if the media and sources support the claim it is reasonable to say. Opposing views can be given due weight. However, if in the analysis of sources equal or similar weight would have to be given to the opposing views, then attribution would be required. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
But it's not used by "the overwhelming majority". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Where are the sources that disagree with this purportedly factual information? What is the opposing point of view that deserves due weight? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul

The article in question is The Holocaust in Poland (and a few other related articles such as Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust). There are two sources I'd like to get more eyes on following a dispute on the page:

  1. Ewa Kurek - this iUniverse book with the following passage on page 305 - "Poland became the only country in German occupied Europe in which assisting Jews carried the highest price - death.. This passage is false as the death penalty was imposed in over countries for assisting Jews as may be seen in - Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty. This Kurek is not widely cited by others (Note that there is a microbiologist with the same name who is well regarded and is cited for microbiology), and as of 2006 she held a lecturing position [21] in "Higher School of Skills in Kielce" - a CV posted here doesn't show her holding a significant academic position. Ewa Kurek herself in known in the following context - [22][23][24] - for stmts such as Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II. In addition to the iUniverse book, in a Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (and a few other places) we are using an older book published by Hippocrene Books and falsely state it was written by Jan Karski (who wrote the introduction).
  2. Mark Paul - some works published by "Polish Educational Foundation in North America (Toronto)" (which mainly publishes works by Paul), others hosted online on multiple sites such as Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles (Polish Canadian Congress), www.glaukopis.pl/, and http://www.internationalresearchcenter.org (online - the same title is hosted on multiple sites). The documents seem to be fairly frequently updated (e.g. published first in 2001(?) has a 2017 version - and multiple versions in between varying in text). Little is known about Paul beyond the name itself on the title - it might be an alias. Beyond being in the references section multiple times, Paul is used to source stmts such as:
    • For hundreds of thousands of Jews the Polish language was barely familiar.[183] By contrast, the overwhelming majority of German Jews of this period spoke German as their first language.
    • The Holocaust testimonies confirm that, trapped in the ghettos, some Jews took advantage of inside information about the socio-economic standing of other Jews as well (see Group 13)
    • and collaborating with the NKVD. Others assumed that, driven by vengeance, Jewish Communists had been prominent in betraying the ethnically Polish and other non-Jewish victims..
Paul is very rarely (around one cite per work on google.scholar - possibly complicated by the multiple versions of these works) cited by others. There are some non-flattering comments on him by more notable authors - e.g. "Ironically, even a cursory examination of The Story of Two Shtetls reveals that Mark Paul and the other authors in this generally anti-Jewish tract rely almost overwhelmingly on Polish secondary sources-rather than archival research-to discount the "Jewish version" of the events described. In other words and without explanation, Polish histories of the Holocaust are taken as the gospel truth, while Jewish sources and testimonies are mostly treated as complete falsehoods" by Allan Levine in this book, or Whatever the result of the case in a court of law, the larger discussions about the partisan activities have produced some demonstrably false claims. For instance, in a document published by the Canadian Polish Congress..... in Zeleznikow, John. "Life at the end of the world: a Jewish Partisan in Melbourne." Holocaust Studies 16.3 (2010): 11-32..Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Paul; Kurek)

iUniverse is pretty much the definition of self-published..it along with lulu.com that one is almost assuredly unreliable without much better author credentials than have been presented thus far. Paul is more difficult.. but the best solution is probably to find better sources for the information. The information on the lack of knowledge of Polish by Jewish Poles is not controversial, at least as far as many did not know Polish. Why it needs contrasting with Jewish Germans is unclear in an article or articles on Poland. The other two example statements can be found, if in a slightly less slanted tone, in most mainstream histories...yes, some Jews in ghettos took advantage of other ghetto inhabitants. Of course, other inhabitants went out of their way to help other ghetto inhabitants...people are people and will both act selfishly and unselfishly. And the trope that Jewish Poles were all Communists is frequently found but just as frequently refuted in most mainstream histories of the period. In other words, I suggest that what Paul is being cited for can be replaced with other sources which will cut down the POV he holds that is not shared by more mainstream historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: - I'm not sure Paul is more difficult here - as this wasn't published by a reputable publisher - I don't believe "Polish Educational Foundation in North America (Toronto)" (or PEFINA) published anyone else. I agree that some of the info above (as well as throughout Wikipedia in other articles that use these online Mark Paul documents) isn't controversial - but the stmt of "Others assumed that, driven by vengeance, Jewish Communists had been prominent in betraying the ethnically Polish and other non-Jewish victims." (not some Jews - but mainly Jews (prominent)) - needs to be attributed clearly to Żydokomuna adherents. If you take a read through some of these documents I believe you will see the nature of the writing - surely some non-controversial facts are not an issue - however other aspects are. We were also using Paul in a BLP - Yitzhak Arad (old version) (using Remarkably, the ideologically tinged memoirs of Yitzhak Arad (then Rudnicki), a historian at the Yad Vashem institute, who belonged to a partisan unit based in Narocz forest which was part of the Voroshilov Brigade, do not do not even mention the “disarming” of Burzyński’s unit. from Tangled Web 2008). and also (wasn't used directly) What Arad neglects to mention is that Soviet and Jewish partisans also attacked and murdered Polish partisans and civilians, Afterwards, Yitzhak Arad joined the NKVD and was active in combattinng the anti-Communist Lithuanian underground. He was dismissed from its ranks for his undisciplined behaviour.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Very large parts of Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust (which presents a fringe viewpoint on the scale of rescue in Wikipedia's voice - turning what was a very small repressed minority who acted at great risk to themselves from Polish society - into a mainstream society movement) are sourced to Paul - including a large list of communities that allegedly did so. It also seems likely that the rest of the article was developed from Paul's text - citing Paul's sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The Arad stuff is much more problematical. And I'm pretty sure Paul's not the best choice for the basis of an article on the rescue of Jews in Poland during the Holocaust. There are better, more mainstream sources available - as I recall, Gilbert did a work on rescuing Jews, which, unfortunately, my copy is packed up right now. I'm not prepared to say Paul would never be reliable but nothing I'm seeing is saying that he's reliable in most of these instances. I note that none of my works on Poland in WWII (including Kochanski's The Eagle Unbowed, Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust (3rd ed 2012), and Rutherford's Prelude to the Final Solution) cite this author. That's usually a sign of not having a notable viewpoint and thus being essentially self-published. WorldCat has ONE listing for anything published by PEFINA Press, which is Paul's Neighbors on the Eve of the Holocaust - which is owned by TWO libraries world-wide, which is also a red-flag. By contrast - Lukas' work is seven entries in WorldCat for just the ISBN of the edition I have - and is carried by 49 libraries for those 7 entries. But Kochanski's book is held by over 1006 libraries. This is a good indication that Paul's not mainstream and likely totally unreliable. Use something else. (Sorry for the delayed rely here - Monday's and Tuesday's are my spouse's days off and I'm generally much more scarce on Wikipedia then). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Avoid both: I looked up the work by Paul [25], and it includes this statement: "Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military [in 1939-1941], constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939-1945." (p. 10)
So Jews managed to collaborate with Nazi Germany before the territories that the lived in were actually occupied by Nazi Germany? It does not make much sense. In any event, he's published by the non-peer-reviewed PEFINA Press, which belongs to "Polish Educational Foundation in North America". I would consider this to be a WP:QS publisher. Paul does not appear to have credentials as a historian, so I would consider him to be WP:QS author, given the quote I provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll note that the PEFINA (Toronto) [26] moniker on some of these books/documents is associated with KPK Toronto who describes and lists Paul work under - Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles - which clearly lays out part of the agenda behind these publications.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Use both discussion concerning Mark Paul - [27]GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
No? 3 editors against 1 (Icewhiz) not included the initial editor who first used Mark Paul as a source. You may want to comment there K.e.coffman please to get a more equitable reason not to use him as a source.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It's better to keep the discussion in one place (here). Also, Wikipedia discussions are not decided by the number of votes, but by the strength of the arguments. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:ILIKEIT vs. a policy based arguement of WP:QS WP:SPS. I will note (AGF) that I am pleased to see that the lively discussion has encouraged a new user to register on Wikipedia and comment at length about Paul, newcomers being a welcome addition to Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not RS. François Robere (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Limited reliability, avoid for controversial claims, no need to remove ASAP for non-controversial claims, replace all in long term, . First, Kurek: self-published (edited: only one of her book seems self-published) amateur historian. Recommend to avoid, there are likely more reliable sources on what she claims. However, I don't think she is too unreliable to be cited for uncontroversial facts (but again, better to replace all cites to her with more reliable works). Second. Paul. As I've noted at the cited talk page, I think he is pretty much like Kurek: self-published amateur historian, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

So Kurek is a self-published amateur historian??? Does anyone actually do some genuine checking, which by the way is readily accessible online so there's NO excuse. Kurek's doctoral dissertation - she was student of Wladyslaw Bartoszewski at the Catholic University of Lublin - was published in 1992 by Znak, a leading Polish publishing house, as Gdy klasztor znaczyl zycie: Udzial zenskich zgromadzen zakonnych w akcji ratowania dzieci zydowskich w Polsce w latach 1939-1945. It was translated into English as Your Life Is Worth Mine with a foreword by Jan Karski, and published by Hippocrene Books in New York (1997). It has been cited in numerous publications, including publications found on the Yad Vashem website: The Convent Children The Rescue of Jewish Children in Polish Convents During the Holocaust by Nahum Bogner (http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%202308.pdf) and is even recommended reading (http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/courses/life_lessons/pdfs/lesson8_7.pdf). Yad Vashem published Nachum Bogner's monograph on that same topic, At the Mercy of Strangers, in which he cites Kurek extensively. Nachum Bogner is a Yad Vashem historian and member of the Commission for the Designation of the Righteous Among the Nations."(https://www.yadvashem.org/author/nahum-bogner.html) Mark Paul's online publication, Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers (http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc) is, by far, the most comprehensive study on this topic in any language. Other works of his were published in books that are available in scores of major libraries around the world: The Story of two shtetls: Brańsk and Ejszyszki: an overview of Polish-Jewish relations in Northeastern Poland during World War II: a collective work. Toronto ; Chicago : Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1998. Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews. Edited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszyński, and Paweł Styrna. Washington, D.C.: Leopolis Press, 2012.Tatzref (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

First, Kurek: self-published amateur historian --> How this below makes her an "amateur historian" @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus?
@Tatzref and GizzyCatBella: My apologies, I made that comment before I reviewed her full publication history. Only the latter of her two English books is self-published (the one published by iUniverse) - and a such, this one book should be used with caution. Her other books indeed seem to have been published through regular publication channels (through Hippocrene Books is not an academic publisher, it doesn't seem unreliable). A lot of her Polish works are published by Wydawnictwo Clio, which does not seem to have a Polish Wikipedia article, or even a website (that I could find) to look into its reliability. (On the bright side, the unreferenced content at pl:Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego suggests the publisher might have gotten some awards from the University of Warsaw, which if right suggests some level of competency and quality). PS. I invite interested editors to expand Ewa Kurek.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Hippocrene Books publishes cookbooks. Kurek, while holding a PhD, never held a significant academic position, and she is barely cited by others (a handful of cites - and some of them are as a negative example of a writing genre). Per her own bio, she doesn't have a position since 2013 (out of date? retired?) and her last position is 2012-2003 – wykładowca Wyższej Szkoły Umiejętności w Kielcach - a lecturer at " Higher School of Skills in Kielce" - which seems to be a weekend/night school. Coverage of her in newspapers has been limited to her rather extreme views - How Ewa Kurek, the Favorite Historian of the Polish Far Right, Promotes Her Distorted Account of the Holocaust (2018), Kurek: Getta zbudowali Żydzi (2006) (Jews having fun in the ghettos, they had cause for celebration as they lived in an "autonomous province" negotiated with the Germans - while Poles were being rounded up and executed in Warsaw). Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: You seem to ignore some arguments, like the fact that Kurek's book was recommended as further reading by YW article [29]. This book has had at least one perfectly reliable review [30] that also seems to be positive of her work ("Ewa Kurek's account of the Polish nuns' rescue efforts is ? to be sure ? both compelling and historically significant"; there are also some criticisms of the book, but nothing serious - awkward prose, too much musings, etc.). And HB publishes more than just cookbooks (and Kurek), it published a number of books on EE topics. She is controversial, yes, but not unreliable by default. Also, I looked at the 'Jews had fun in ghettos'/'Jews build the ghettos' criticism, and I don't think it is solid. She was simply making a point that not ALL that happened in the ghettos was miserable - they were better than concentration camps, for example. She was writing this in the context of analyzing ghetto's autonomy as a step towards Jewish statehood, and noting that ghetto administration tried, with limited resources, to provide various amenities for their citizens. The criticism of this I see in newspapers is more along the lone of 'but she didn't stress that Jewish children died in ghettos too!'. So what, this is not her point, not every work about Jews in WWII has to focus on their suffering. Calling her an anti-Semite because she writes about other aspects of Jewish life in WWII is IMHO unreasonable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Kurek indeed did receive some neutral of even mildly positive reviews early in her career. Following her shift to "Jews had fun in the ghettos" (from at least 2006) - it is very hard to find non-negative accounts of her in a WP:RS. Per google scholar this 1997 book has 12 citations - so approximately cited once every two years by someone else. Note she was mainly praised, at the time, for collecting compelling accounts (so a PRIMARY sort of thing) - and not for historical analysis. As for "Jews had fun in the ghettos", and remarks such as those here where she compares Jews to a pack of lions that throw out the weakest to be eaten or killed (coverage in RS - here)- it seems serious enough that per AP Polish officials have intervened to prevent an author accused of anti-Semitism from receiving an award at a Polish diplomatic outpost in the United States. Even a cursory look at coverage of her in any English RS written in the past decade shows massive WP:REDFLAGs.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
So, first, her early research, and the first English book, seem RS. Her second one should not be used for controversial claims' about Polish-Jewish history. Which, AFAIK, isn't the case, since nobody is trying to reference 'Jews had fun in the ghettos' anywhere on Wikpedia, with or without her as a ref. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
A book with 12 cites, by a WP:QS author in a publisher that also published cook books? No. Very borderline RS as it is (prior to later developments) - and definitely WP:UNDUE. I'll note that it also contains at least one factual error (that Poland was the "only country with a death penalty" - this was being used to source this, and we've refuted this in other discussions). We wouldn't accept David Irving writing on Jews - regardless if they were made early in his career - nor should we accept Kurek's writings as a source prior to the later developments.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Lest I be accused of BLP issues in not stating a source: "Kurek is more subtle than [Holocaust denier] David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system.”[31] or She is maybe the only legitimate Holocaust scholar to have become an alleged Holocaust revisionist or distorter during a later phase of her career. When asked for potential precedents, David Silberklang, the editor-in-chief of Yad Vashem Studies and a leading expert on the Holocaust in Poland, could only think of the British Holocaust denier David Irving, who lacked Kurek’s extensive formal credentials and was never taken seriously as an academic historian.[32]. I will note that her tenure as a "legitimate Holocaust scholar" was not too long - perhaps a decade.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
As for Paul - there are scant mentions of him in any RS, he as however been given as an example, in a footnote, in I will never forget what you did for me during the war”: Rescuer — rescuee relationships in the light of postwar correspondence in Poland, 1945–1949. Yad Vashem Studies, 39(2), 169-207.: As with the case of other dominant narratives pertaining to the memory of the Holocaust, some of the chief narratives about rescuers and Jewish survivors were formed in the early postwar period such as the myth of the “ignoble ungrateful Jew.” By the late 1960s, this myth was fully developed and utilized by the “partisan” faction within the Communist Party, led by General Mieczysław Moczar. Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85) - 85 For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul, ed., Wartime Rescuers of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors (Toronto: Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 2007); .... - So a footnote mentioning his work as expressing a myth.Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, we should look at the source of this latest revelation: Joanna Michlic, an ideological warrior who declared certain historians such as Bogdan Musial, Marek Wierzbicki, Marek Chodakiewicz and Tomasz Strzembosz to be “nationalists,” “bigots” and “hacks.” She accuses them of doing what she herself does: viewing Polish-Jewish relations as a conflict in which one side is always right, and the other side is at fault. Joanna B. Michlic, "The Soviet Occupation of Poland, 1939–41, and the Stereotype of the Anti-Polish and Pro-Soviet Jew," Jewish Social Studies 13.3 (2007): 135-176. So we’re dealing with someone who advances very crude arguments as a way of avoiding an objective discussion of the merits. Do reputable historians share her views? Apparently not. In his review of Sowjetische Partisanen: Mythos und Wirklichkeit, Israel Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer called Musial’s book “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Timothy Snyder doesn’t think much of Michlic’s views either since he invited Marek Wierzbicki to contribute to the collective volume Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928–1953 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), which he edited. Is Michlic any more credible when she attacks Mark Paul, and HIS alleged expressions of the “myth” of Jewish ingratitude? The section titled “Recognition and (In)Gratitude” in Mark Paul’s Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors and Rescuers (http://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/CLERGY-RESCUE-KPK-8.doc) is a compilation of quotations from Jewish sources, with minimal commentary from the compiler. Mark Paul canvases a broad spectrum of Jewish viewpoints. The “offensive” sources are not Moczarites or Polish nationalists but Jewish testimonies, and it is Jewish authors who make the point that they indicate ingratitude. Here are some examples: “‘Now you see why we hate the Polacks,’ one survivor concluded her account, in which she presented many instances of Poles’ help. There was no word about hating the Germans.” Cited in Eva Hoffman, Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and the World of Polish Jews (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 245. “The Wanderers were among the luckiest Jewish families in town. Both parents and the girls survived the war. They were hidden successively by several Polish families. After the war, the Wanderers emigrated to America. I sent the Wanderer sisters information about the Regulas, one of the Polish families in whose house on the outskirts of Brzezany they had hid after the Judenrein roundup. I hoped that they would start the procedure of granting them the Righteous Gentiles award, but nothing came of it. … When I called Rena, the older one, and asked whether a young Polish historian, a colleague of mine who was doing research in New York, could interview her for my project on Brzezany, her reaction was curt and clear: ‘I hate all Polacks.’ … Rena advised me not to present the Poles in too favorable a way ‘for the sake of our martyrs.’” Shimon Redlich, Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1918–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002), 22. Liwa Gomułka, the wife of Communist leader Władysław Gomułka, “refused to see an old Polish woman who had hidden her during the Nazi occupation and had come to her for some small favour.” Michael Checinski, Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism (New York: Karz-Cohl, 1982), 143. So before attributing something to Mark Paul one should actually read his publications, which are copiously and meticulously referenced. A Tangled Web contains more than 1800 footnotes. The quarrel, it seems, is almost always with the evidence that Mark Paul has unearthed, and in many, if not most cases, the problematic evidence is based on a Jewish source. Tatzref (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with much of your argument, I'll note that the actionable quarrel here, re:Paul, is that he is not publishing in WP:RS. While Michlic seems to have engaged in some academic slandering, she has nonetheless published it in peer reviewed sources. Even if Paul's scholarship is better (and I am not saying it is), since he, unlike her, is not publishing in academic press, is is much less acceptable of a source. Perhaps it is his choice, but we have to also consider the fact that his articles where rejected from reliable academic journals, the same journals that Michlic seems to be able to publish in. Again, I think Paul is acceptable as a source for non-controversial statements, but from WP:RS perspective (which does not consider WP:NPOV or such), Michlic is better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Michlic's footnote about Paul (as well as her writing on the more notable far-right historians) was published in a WP:RS - mainline sources covering Historiography - this is not "slander" (a BLP vio, by the way, which might be used to describe a letter to the editor) - but bona fida research findings. Michlic's characterizations, given where they were published, may be used as a WP:RS for historiographical information on the subjects she treated in her research. Whether editors like or dislike her research findings carries little weight.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul's evidence

@Tatzref: Re evidence that Mark Paul has unearthed... - if the evidence is valuable, why has it not been published in peer-reviewed publications? Is there some sort of a conspiracy going on? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. By choosing not to (or not being able) to publish in peer reviewed works (and there are plenty of low key but borderline reliable Polish peer reviewed journals which would welcome English works), his works appear much less reliable than those of others. That's the problem with citing non-academic sources. Bottom line, in the long run, all such sources should be removed from Wikipedia (through they can be used for now if they are non-controversial).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotrus (talkcontribs)

A memoir from 1864?

Thoughts, please! At Giorgi family, is this source:

  • Viscountess Emily Anne Beaufort Smythe Strangford (1864). The Eastern Shores of the Adriatic in 1863: With a Visit to Montenegro. R. Bentley. pp. 129–. 

reliable for a statement that "the Giorgi family received patrician status in 930"? Please note that the Enciclopedia Italiana of 1937 gives 964 as the date of the first documented mention of the family, as does the current online version of Treccani; that date may perhaps refer only to documentation within what is now Italy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think a memoir can generally only be treated as a reliable primary source on things the subject actually witnessed or did, unless they are published experts in some other field. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Add "according to...". François Robere (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

One America News Network

Is One America News Network WP:RS? See Talk:Douma chemical attack. Comments? Huldra (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not from what I can see, very poor reputation and a tendency to publish fake stories.Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Certainly not reliable. Neutralitytalk 22:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Use with caution. I don't share its political views, but OANN deserves some credit for actually doing proper journalism, and not just acting, like most "mainstream" media, as stenographers for the usual war propaganda. --NSH001 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
What in the world does this mean?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not even close to being RS. FFS, this is the outlet that has Jack Posobiec as a commentator/contributor [33]. This is the guy who promoted the idiotic Pizzagate conspiracy theory, has praised the white supremacist Richard B. Spencer, has used the anti-semitic Triple parentheses "echo" to attack people, encouraged the harassment and attacks on political opponents on twitter, promoted and made up countless other fake news (and by "fake news" I mean shit that was outright fake, not that some schmuck on facebook or twitter called fake). And oh yeah, he showed up to an anti-Trump rally with a "Rape Melania" sign, pretending to be an anti-Trump protester. Anyone who thinks this is a reliable source needs to have their head checked and their moral compass repaired.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable for supporting a statement that is attributed, or presented in text as opinion (example: “According to reports by One America News Network, XYZ occurred in 2015”... but not reliable enough to support an unattributed statement presented as fact (ie: “XYZ occurred in 2015”). Do not give it WP:Undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I know you always say this and you're pretty consistent, but this kind of approach just isn't viable in practice. There's a ton of "opinions" out there and we can't include them all, just because we can attribute them. This is doubly true for sites that publish hoaxes and fake news.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Marek I understand where you're coming from, but they also seem to have gotten a reporter to the town, and shot video from there [34]. Despite their deficiencies as a source, that does raise the possibility that there is some scrap of value to be found — enough that use with attribution is justified. -Darouet (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing that "hey, they might publish fake news, hoaxes and conspiracy theories, but there might have been this one instance where they might have made a half hearted attempt at not just making shit up out of thin air, so we should use them, just with attribution"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
And the National Enquirer has a Pulitzer. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. One America News is on the level of Gateway Pundit, Breitbart and InfoWars. It regularly promotes hoaxes and falsehoods. When the network publishes falsehoods, it doesn't retract them. I think this episode in OAN's history is a good example of what a garbage source it is: "In November 2017, One America News aired a segment citing a false rumor by an anonymous Twitter account that the Washington Post had offered $1,000 to Roy Moore's accusers.[30][31][32] One America News described the tweet as a "report" and described the tweeter as a "former Secret Service agent and Navy veteran".[30][31] The Twitter account had a history of tweeting falsehoods and conspiracy theories; the Twitter account had also made repeated and inconsistent lies about its identity, including appropriating the identity of a Navy serviceman who died in 2007.[31] After it was revealed that the story was a hoax, One America News did not retract its report."[35] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • God, no - They have little-to-no credibility for factual reporting and a reputation for hiring alt-right conspiracy theorist trolls like Jack Posobiec. No scraps to be found here.- MrX 🖋 18:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not Reliable It's a fringey political propaganda outlet masquerading as news. Very problematic history of promoting bogus news stories and conspiracy theories. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Piling on Only good for humor value. O3000 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Never - a quintessential example of a non-reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable what everyone else said Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope with a side of nope, extra nope and nope sauce. This is a faux news site that has no place on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiData source

I don't know where to raise this question, whether this is a VPP issue or here (or even an RfC question (feel free to move/convert if that would be warranted)). Here goes:

IMDB is an external database with a lot of information. We have roughly decided that iMDB is NOT to be used as a reference, as it is generally unreliable information. People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. iMDB cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from iMDB.

Similar goes for any external wiki that we use. We may be able to find material that we do not have on, say, es.wikipedia.org, and we can incorporate that information in an article on en.wikipedia, but we cannot say that es.wikipedia is the source. es.wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from es.wikipedia

Even if the specific bit of information that we take from iMDB or es.wikipedia is locally referenced, we should use the information from that reference, not from iMDB or es.wikipedia at face value.

We incorporate data from WikiData (by transclusion, by substituted transclusion, or by copying) in the same way as we could copy material from iMDB and es.wikipedia, which means we incorporate material from an unreliable source. Now my question is: how do we see that with respect to WikiData? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. So what is the problem with "People can use Wikidata to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules"? If we apply the same rules as we do for other Wikipedias, Commons, iMDB, etc. why should the results be any different for Wikidata? --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Because, when transcluded, the material is sourced from WikiData, referenced (where needed) to an source which meets our sourcing standards. That reference could be local, or on WikiData. When we take something from es.wikipedia, it is not transcluded but copied, properly reference to the reliable source. Es.wikipedia is not visible in that scenario, and it shouldn’t because it is not a suitable source giving credibility to the correctness of the source. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Nor is Wikidata visible in the scenario of information imported into an infobox, for example. The information is not transcluded, because it's filtered when imported. Checking that the reference meets our sourcing standards is precisely the same operation whether one is checking on es-wiki or on Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the information is transcluded, altering it on WikiData changes the value on en.wikipedia, which is not the case when taking the data from es.wikipedia. The data is sourced from WikiData, referenced, with WikiData referenced. If the data is imported it is the same, I am talking about transcluded data. I hope now that other editors will start chiming in, because between the two of uswe are not getting anywhere. Our arguments apparently do not arrive at the other side and we are running in circles. —Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the information is not transcluded. "Transclusion is generally the inclusion of the content of a document into another document by reference." - mw:Transclusion. There are no documents on Wikidata to transclude. The values are imported from Wikidata and filtered, not passed by reference. When a sourced fact is updated on es-wiki manually or by bot, that update will eventually be made on en-wiki manually or by bot. The difference is merely timescale. If a source is removed from Wikidata as unreliable or inaccurate, the fact it used to support no longer appears in our infobox. That process is very different from transclusion. You are asking others to answer questions based on your faulty understanding of the mechanics of importing sourced content from Wikidata to Wikipedia. We won't get any informed opinions from others while you persist in biasing the questions. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be using WikiData at all IMO, because of the doubtful origin of the information presented there and the frequent inaccuracies. Reyk YO! 07:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE

The above discussion seems confusing: e.g. "source from" vs. "reference to" – I suppose there is some difference between the two but it seems all but clear from the discussion above:

  1. Wikidata is (like iMDB) WP:USERGENERATED content. The WP:RS guideline (whereto WP:USERGENERATED redirects) has some exceptions. Afaics, however, the listed exceptions do not apply to Wikidata nor to iMDB. In sum:
    1. Wikidata can not be used as a source
    2. Wikidata can not be used as a reference
  2. Wikidata however also (like other Wikimedia projects) often "mirrors Wikipedia content" or "relies on material from Wikipedia as source", for which the WP:CIRCULAR part of the WP:V policy has: "... do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources", which means that
    1. content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a source
    2. content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a reference
  3. Copying references from an unreliable source to Wikipedia without confirming that these references are reliable and support the content is equally a breach of policy, e.g. from WP:CIRCULAR: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.", which means,
    1. the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a source
    2. the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a reference
... otherwise (if not complying to these policy requirements) the content can be WP:CHALLENGED...

Probably we should see more of that, WP:CHALLENGE-ing that type of content I mean. The abstract discussion above is unlikely to lead to an (abstract) solution, and even less likely to change policy. So, if you see mainspace content that is likely sourced from and/or referenced to Wikidata, and that is not WP:BLUE content, remove it. If a discussion ensues, that can not be resolved on the article's talk page, then bring it here in the Source/Article/Content format recommended for this noticeboard, and we'd maybe have something less abstract to discuss about here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a first example of such a WP:CHALLENGE:

  • [36]:
    • SourceWikidata
    • ArticleMalpelo Island
    • Content – removed content, based on the unreliable Wikidata source, does not distinguish between the name of the island ("Malpelo Island") and the name of the WHS protected area ("Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary"), notwithstanding that the external reliable source (1216) & reference (identical to external reliable source, i.e. 1216) are clear that that is the name of the WHS protected area.
The above has not been discussed on the article's talk page yet (and was, for clarity, operated under Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Implementation of RfC) – just trying to illustrate what such WP:CHALLENGEs could look like.
Further, this example illustrates what goes wrong when not *checking* (i.e. per WP:CIRCULAR's "Confirm that these [external reliable] sources support the content, then use them directly") whether the content of the external reliable source matches the content imported from Wikidata... --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Fracis, that is true for any information, and besides the point. My question here basically is: when we transclude data from WikiData, are we getting that data from an external source. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
External to what? Wikidata is a Wikimedia project owned by the WMF so, like English Wikipedia, it's internal to that group of projects; Wikidata is a project different from English Wikipedia, so it is as external to English Wikipedia as, say, French Wikipedia or Commons. Could you explain why that question is relevant? For me the main distinction is: reliable or not reliable, that is: in WP:RS/WP:V sense – and the kind of distinctions that are sorted out on this noticeboard, which is called "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". So, for example, French Wikipedia is not a reliable source in that sense. For Commons, the answer to the reliability question falls in two parts: it is partially reliable, and partially unreliable. Probably for Wikidata that would be the case too: partially reliable, partially unreliable. I propose to proceed with case studies triggered by WP:CHALLENGEs as described above, which would make the question at least tangible. Maybe the abstract external-or-internal question is "besides the point". At least it seems to be so on this noticeboard which is about reliability of sources. So please explain why you think your question relevant, maybe we can find a better venue for it (if it is, as you seem to indicate, unrelated to the reliable-or-unreliable question). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
So, we are transcluding material from an unreliable source. There is correct information on it, but in basis, since material on WD can be a) reliably sourced, b) unreliably sourced, c) unsourced), d) reliably sourced but changed without changing the reference. So we are getting to the point. —Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
As to my question: if we are transcuding data from WikiData, are we sourcing information, and therefore is that information source subject to WP:RS? That is besides the question whether the material carries a reference here or there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Tacking on references without checking whether the reference represents a reliable source nor whether the source supports the content would be meaningless in any Wikimedia context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Scenario: I include a chembox, where the synonym field is empty, and the box is set up to transclude if the data is referenced on WikiData. However, WikiData is empty for the synonym as well. I check all transcluded fields, noting that there are no synonyms, and see all are NOW reliably sourced. I save and walk away. You come to WikiData the next day to the same item, fill in a synonym, referenced to what En.wikipedia considers an unreliable source (but since WikiData is not that strict, you have not done anything ‘wrong’). Because it is THENa referenced item and the chembox is set up to transclude referenced items, it is transcluded. YOU have just added unreliable material through MY edit. But from the en.wikipedia point of view, you have tacked on a reference to data wihout checking whether after transclusion it is representing a reliable source or whether the source supports the content. Meaningless? —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it your responsibility that if you edit WikiData and add data that is going to be transcluded to make sure that it follows en.wikipedia sourcing rules? And if you, on WikiData, continue to add such data, will any admin on WikiData block you (after warnings) for consistently failing en.wikipedia’s sourcing requirements? —Dirk Beetstra T C 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems extremely unlikely I would have added a synonym for a chemical (with or without reference) to Wikidata. Hence my proposal to switch to real examples instead of using hypothetical ones – would at least avoid to seemingly make me responsible for things I would never do.
In your hypothetical example, did the Lua code which imported the synonym (and its reference) check whether the source indicated by the reference is reliable for en.wikipedia's purposes? And whether that source covered the content of the imported material? I don't think so, not on either account. Thus, the software (and/or whoever set it up in that way) seems to be the culprit for evading the WP:V policy. But whatever: if something along these lines happens, simply WP:CHALLENGE the material by removing it (which is an acceptable method to counter material that does not comply to WP:V). If that doesn't lead to acceptable results, bring the example back to this noticeboard for analysis. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you really expecting a LUA code being able to detect if something is a reliable source for information or not? This noticeboard can be closd. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No, the Lua code cannot perform what is needed for full WP:V compliance, hence the unresolved problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Unless WikiData is a reliable source, we have no way to distinguish whether their material is reliable. We should therefor not source material from WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Wikidata is not a source, reliable or otherwise. Material cannot be reliable or unreliable, only sources have that property. The way we distinguish whether the source is reliable is the always the same and we have WP:RS to explain how to do it.
Here's a concrete example: William P. Murphy received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither, it's a statement. Here's the award that Wikidata states William P. Murphy received: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine . Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither. Follow the pen-icon link and you'll find this reference https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1934/ - is that reliable or unreliable? I would have thought 'reliable'. Anybody disagree? If you want to challenge something, why not look at William P. Murphy? You can legitimately remove the first four paragraphs because they are unsourced. The infobox, however, has good sourcing in place for each of its facts. Using Dirk's reasoning, we should not have any content at all because it's all sourced from Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I just WP:CHALLENGEd the Wikidata source at William P. Murphy ([37]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Related question

One issue that has not been discussed is how WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies when transcluding from Wikidata. My understanding of SAYWHERE is that, if we use Wikidata as an intermediary host site for information, then Wikidata becomes OUR source, regardless of where Wikidata got its info. Wikidata is what we should cite. Comments? Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that is exactly as I see it: regardless of whether the data is locally and/or on WikiData referenced to a reliable source and whether either reference (still) represents what we originally transcluded (knowing that material may not be on WikiData when the transclusion was set up and that the data can be changed on WikiData after transclusion), WikiData is the source of information, that is where we got the information. And WikiData is by all definitions of our sources unreliable (if we consider ourselves, en.wikipedia, to be an unreliable source ...). To me, ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a <ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information. It stretches my AGF that all editors who transclude data from WikiData have checked whether all data is reliably sourced (knowing that e.g. an template can now be added to a page where one field is both locally and on WikiData empty, and that later data can be added to WikiData for said field with an, for en.wikipedia, unreliable source). —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Re. "... ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a <ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information" – of course not. Wikidata is a WP:USERGENERATED source (see above), and it is thus not allowed to use it as a reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
So we are not allowed to transclude from Wikidata? Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
If you source data from WikiData you have to reference your source. If you are not allowed to use an unreliable source as a reference, you are not allowed to use the source. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
...thus what I wrote in the #Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE subsection seems entirely relevant after all. The exception would be WP:BLUE type of content (as I indicated above). Thus, I'd proceed with WP:CHALLENGEs, as described above, so that we can figure out together where the WP:BLUE border falls for content imported from Wikidata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
No, because WikiData is unreliable, there is no unchallengable info - all information that you transclude from WikiData is unreliable, and therefore it should simply not be used. And we are NOT talking about imported data, we are talking about transcluded data - i.e. data that, when changed on WikiData, changes data here. —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
About the semantics: "transcluding" is definitely a (specific) form of "importing". I'd say "importing-with-a-live-connection" or "importing-by-software" or some such. So, if there's guidance relating to "importing" it certainly also applies to "transcluding".
There's definitely also WP:BLUE type of content in a Wikidata item: at least the sitelinks (called interwiki links at English Wikipedia) are. Whether these fall under the "exception" of the second paragraph of WP:CIRCULAR, or are completely outside the WP:V/WP:RS realm is unclear: the thing is, they're unproblematic as far as this WP:RSN board is concerned. I'd be sympathetic towards the idea that authority control numbers might be to some degree WP:BLUE, or at least unproblematic, too. I'd like to find out whether there's a consensus about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Although it can have impact, I indeed think that the interwikis are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS. All other, though, do not. I do think that linking the wrong persondata on a person could be BLP-sensitive (as that does relate to being able to confirm whether we are talking about a certain subject). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with how the {{authority control}} box currently operates. Since all authority control numbers in that box (whether or not transcluded from Wikidata) are presented as external links, and are by the design of the box not used as references/sources in the WP:V/WP:RS sense, this would equally fall outside WP:RSN board I suppose. Afaics also "unchallengable" in the WP:CHALLENGE sense. Applicable guidance would be Wikipedia:External links, and if there are issues to be resolved w.r.t. external links in that template, rather to be taken to WP:ELN than to this WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
IMHO, anything in a Wikipedia article should be correct, and in this case the created external link is by itself a (primary) reference. But also for external links, one needs to be able to show that it is correct, and there are (albeit rare) cases where there are references in the external link section to verify that a certain external link is indeed the one that it is supposed to be (ever changing external links are sometimes referenced as to show that that is currently the correct one). I would not really go as far as that external links are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: There is such a discussion currently at ELN here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org

An editor is insisting that we use sources like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org over at list of cryptids (Talk:List_of_cryptids#Man-eating_trees). (As the article is something of a hive for cryptozoologists, if you're not familiar with the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, you'll save yourself some trouble by reading this or this first.) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll note the second link here is to a bogus personal page written by editor bloodofox. And you keep synthesizing supposed WP guidelines and creating non-facts. No one is suggesting that books or magazines on mythology, cryptozoology, ghosts, folklore, or aliens, be used as sources for anything except the subjects in question. These aren't scientific studies where sources such as these should be blotted out as fast as possible. But when we have an article on ghost sightings we are going to use books and other sources on ghosts. When we write about mythology we are going to use books and websites that deal with mythology. And when we have articles on lists of cryptids we use books and magazines that describe cryptids. And, of course, when we talk about real scientific studies we aren't going to use any of these types of sources. Wikipedia has always worked this way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The "bogus personal page" is an essay, which is obvious to anyone who clicks it. Note that this is the user insisting that we use these sites.
Obviously, when we write about mythology, we turn to philologists or other related fields in anthropology. When we discuss ghostlore, we turn to folklorists. We have a plethora of policies regarding pseudoscience, nicely summed up at WP:PSCI. Under no circumstances do we turn to amateur pages like cryptomundo.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It is not obvious that the info is your personal musings on a subject you dislike and have been trying to get banished for years. Mythology, Cryptozoology, Ghosts... they are all the same thing as far as science is concerned. They are non-science and we make sure our readers know they are non-science. When we look at the God Zeus it's as non-science as a horned rabbit. Anthropology? Really? What a double standard that would be to accept here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yikes! Judging by your response, you seem to have a poor understanding of WP:RS and, well, the humanities in general. Nonetheless, per WP:RS (especially Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship), we cite experts — academics — in their field. I'm afraid you'll need to look elsewhere to link to sites promoting pet pseudosciences. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, like with the Golden Fleece article we use books such as Lives of the Necromancers: An account of the most eminent persons in successive ages, who have claimed for themselves, or to whom has been imputed by others, the exercise of magical power. A perfectly fine scientific journal on the subject of Golden Fleeces. Your reliance on RS and other wiki guidelines has been very very inaccurate in past posts, and your attempts to remove all things crypto-related have been admonished and reverted by multiple longstanding editors and administrators. Perhaps this is a topic that you should stay away from because of inherent bias? We have editors trying to add sourcing to an article, while you and one other editor simply delete everything. This is supposed to be a fun topic that everyone knows isn't science, but that is covered in books, newspapers, dictionaries, and magazines. We site the source that it is considered a cryptid, plop it in the list, and move on. Just like ghosts and mythological three-headed dogs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If you see a violation of WP:RS, remove it. It's as simple as that. You're bound by WP:RS just like anyone else. I have no idea what the context is for the 19th century book you've pulled out of the blue, but Wikipedia's source for myth-related articles are just as strong as they are for any other subject. (The "other user" you mention, by the way, is @Tronvillain:.) Notably, when I rewrote cryptozoology from scratch and various other related articles, I stuck to WP:GA standards, just like I do anywhere else (so much for "attempts to remove anything crypto-related"!).
Sorry, as long as the site doesn't somehow get bought out by, say, global warming denialists, flat earthers, or gay conversion therapy proponents, we retain Wikipedia's reliable source criteria and so links to pseudoscientific sites like cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org just ain't happening. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue that remains unclear to me, despite multiple threads on a half dozen or more talk pages, is the extent to which something like bigfoot should be considered an academic subject for the purposes of choosing reliable sources. IMO folkloristics does not have a monopoly on reliable sourcing for a subject that's so much a part of popular culture (or regional culture). So if there are books in the popular press or high-quality articles in non-academic publications (not including silly local news stories like "let's interview this local guy who says he saw a yeti"), I don't see a good reason not to use them. And if popular press uses terms that originated with cryptozoology, then use them just as we would any other term from popular press. In other words, as with most other topics, academic sources are ideal but not absolutely required. I feel very much in the minority with this nonbinary opinion, though, as I see bloodofox and a handful of others insisting on academic sourcing, and I see fyunck(click) and a handful of others insisting that basically anything having to do with cryptozoology is a reliable source. It's a mess. For a long time.

As to this specific matter of this section, I'm inclined to think these two websites are not great sources. What would be useful, Fyunck(click), would be an explanation of why they are reliable sources (putting aside, for the time being, the issues I mention above). In other words, let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is no special requirement for academic sources here and that there isn't a long messy history in debates over these sources. Why are these two in particular good sources according to WP:RS? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. First, if you happen to 'believe in' (see folk belief, emic and etic) the existence of Bigfoot, that doesn't make you a cryptozoologist. You don't magically start using the word cryptid, for example. This word remains obscure to the general public and simply isn't used by academics. We've been over this many times. The word that those who aren't members of the obscure and tiny subculture use is one everyone knows: monster. It's also the same word that folklorists, anthropologists, and zoologists use for fantastical beasts like Bigfoot. It is, by far, the most common word that media outlets use to describe creatures like Bigfoot or, say, the Loch Ness Monster.
And this is exactly why we need academic source for these topics, just like any other, and as mandated by Wikipedia's sourcing polices. While Wikipedia may have served as the subculture's primary vector for years, several editors — including myself — continue to work toward improving the quality of our coverage on these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That word is not really obscure as I see it in newspapers and dictionaries. It has entered standard English. I have no idea why you keep trying to make it like it is only used by a handful of people around the world. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's quite obscure to the general public and in media, and Wikipedia is its primary vector. Go on, compare usage of monster versus cryptid! :bloodofox: (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


Neither of those websites is reliable in any way, shape or form. Both emphasize "humor" and both publish credulous bullshit. I will consistently oppose any use of websites like this anywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Rhododendrites. Mysterious Universe is a tremendously entertaining podcast - I even used to subscribe to it. However, it's nothing more than that - entertainment. It's produced by two guys out of their home in Australia, neither of whom have scholarly or journalistic qualifications, who don't apply more than the slightest gatekeeping process, and who often have guests of dubious credentials. (This is not a knock on the show, just an observation that it's not intended to be anything more than light fare.) Chetsford (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course they aren't great websites, I'm not sure anyone said that they were great. If at all possible we would want much better ones, preferably books in print. I don't happen to own any books on what is and what is not a cryptid. What I am saying is that no one should be able to be an academic on ghosts or golden fleece either, yet those sources seem to have no problem passing muster here. It's an unfair standard. Way back when, I had high school classes on mythology and demons and other such topics. They were fun but not really academic in any way that I could see. I have no idea if class members took any of it seriously, but we had to do research on the topics nonetheless. If we find multiple google entries of a creature being considered a cryptid, then we put in those multiple sources and add it to the list. You're not going to find scientist written, peer reviewed papers on the topics for sourcing. But you aren't going to find those for ghosts, mythology, or folklore beasts either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
If you have an issue with Wikipedia's reliable source policy or you need further guidance on what does and does not constitute a reliable source (and, if you'd like, how to source articles on the topic of myth, legend, or any other folklore genre, for example), please discuss it over at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems your suggestion was that specific cryptids be included in a list of cryptids if they were mentioned in, for instance, Mysterious Universe because no legitimate scientific source would index - in the example you gave - Man Eating Trees. And that MU, in this instance, is not being used to comment on the veracity of the existence of Man Eating Trees but simply to verify it exists as a hypothesized animal by virtue of the fact they hypothesized on it. In the strictest sense, you're correct. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The mere fact that a not notable media outlet has ruminated on a cryptid certainly isn't enough to warrant its inclusion in an article that is "a list of cryptids notable within cryptozoology". That said, I appreciate your position that the absence of sources examining the sociology of the cryptozoological community means that there will always be a dearth of RS which could establish what is, in fact, notable within that community and understand you're not holding out MU as an example of RS. Chetsford (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not absolute. For instance, professional tennis is sanctioned by the ATP, WTA, and ITF. We use those places as reliable sources for player information and stats. However, by wikipedia consensus, we are forbidden from using those governing bodies as a source for how we spell a player's name at wikipedia. While using crypto books and websites for academic things would be ridiculous, using them as additional sources for what is considered a cryptid makes perfect sense. They are not a first choice, but they are a source when you are talking about fantastic creatures to begin with. Just like we use bizarre books as sources for things like Golden Fleece. Now I don't look at Mysterious Universe for anything, so perhaps it is not as good as some others, but a blanket removal of sources from anything crypto-related is really what we are talking about here. Bloodofox wants all sources from all cryptozoology books and magazines and websites expurgated, and that's not right.
As for indiscriminate lists, we have articles here like List of Nirvana concerts worked on by many editors and administrators through the years. We have lists of thousands upon thousands of asteroids... few of which are notable. Worked on by many astronomy fans. We have lists of every tennis player, List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, List of Essential Mix episodes, all of which are massive lists compared to cryptids. It seems like this list is being singled out by certain editors because it is not scientific. those other lists have planty of non-notables in their listings and they have worse sourcing than list of cryptids. What is it about cryptids that makes it a continual target for a handful of editors? I don't recall what even led me to the cryptid article to begin with, but I stuck around because it seemed to getting the short end of the stick as far a fair treatment by certain editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow, where to start with this nonsense. I can sum this up: here you have a lot of text aiming to get cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org on Wikipedia by attempting to avoid WP:RS. Listen, add these sources to an article and they'll simply be removed by another editor who leaves an edit summary of "WP:RS". And they'll be right, because reliable sources are a pillar of the platform. You know better, and your time is frankly better spent elsewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Considering the nonsense and mischief you caused in trying to delete the article against consensus, this is a pot, kettle, black, type of statement. Move along. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
As I've pointed out before, those are completely different type of lists. As seen at WP:CSC: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" or "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group."--tronvillain (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Back to the topic of the suggested sources. Stop discussing philosophy here.

  • mysteriousuniverse.org has a staff of writers, but I could not locate its editorial policy. However the website offers a warning about the reliability of its contents: "Neither we nor any third parties provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors to the fullest extent permitted by law."
  • Cryptomundo is a WordPress blog. I think it meets the criteria for self-published works. Per Wikipedia policy: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Without addressing the other issues, I will note in passing that the content disclaimer is a red herring. You'll find similar disclaimers on the New York Times and CNN websites. Such boilerplate disclaimers don't convey anything about the reliability of a source one way or the other; they just tell us that the publisher has a lawyer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that this is a question about what whether those are reliable sources for establishing something as a "cryptid notable within cryptozoology." The list shouldn't just be "List of anything ever mentioned by anyone as a cryptid that also has a Wikipedia article." Even within a pseudoscience, there are things that are significant and things that aren't. There are "cryptids" that are prominent within cryptozoology (they get a lot of coverage, have a lot of supposed sightings, people actually look for them, etc.), like bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, chupacabras, thylacines (actually existed, but gets described as a cryptid by those claiming its not extinct), and so on. Then we have things like man-eating trees, described by Shuker in The Beasts that Hide from Man as one of the "little-realized plethora of lesser-known or decidedly obscure mystery beasts also on record - creatures that have often received only the briefest of mentions in the literature, and even then only in specialized, scarcely read, or largely forgotten journals, travelogues, historical accounts, and other esoteric sources." Does the occasional article on a site like Mysterious Universe repeating exactly the same hundred year old sightings, hoaxes, and fiction constitute notability within the "field" of cryptozoology? I really don't think it does. --tronvillain (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Focusing on "cryptid notable within cryptozoology" may not be the best way to frame it. In that context, academic sources are absolutely irrelevant and the question is what are reliable sources within cryptozoology. As we know, with rare exceptions (i.e. Daily Mail), we don't really label sources as never reliable or always reliable for any purpose, so while some cryptozoology publication might not carry a lot of weight when talking about a bigger topic per PSCI/FRINGE, if we're only looking "in universe," then it's more likely that these two websites could be considered reliable (note that I'm not saying that I think they are, however). It seems a lot easier to just make it a list of notable cryptids, including those for which we have a Wikipedia article and for which there are reliable sources calling them a cryptid. It's in that rubric that I think these sources are worse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
We actually do have academic sources discussing what monsters and entities from the folklore record that cryptozoologists find to be particularly notable, which can generally be summed up as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and anything cryptozoologists deem to resemble them. While academics mostly ignore the pseudoscience (or, in the case of biologists, not uncommonly offer up harsh criticism of it), they now and then do discuss what cryptozoologists primarily fixate on. The fact is that we have academic sources on this topic, but we have historically had -- and continue to have -- editors who are choosing to either ignore them or try to wiggle around them in favor of, for example, amateur websites. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's the stated scope of the article, which is perhaps the problem. I still think those wouldn't be sufficient even "in universe", but as you say, perhaps it should be a list of notable cryptids: those which have a Wikipedia article and have reliable sources describing them as a cryptid (sufficient to get that into their article, for example), which would probably encompass most of the "major" cryptids. For collections of anything and everything someone calls a cryptid, there are things like the Cryptid Wiki.--tronvillain (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But when we have an article on ghost sightings we are going to use books and other sources on ghosts...And when we have articles on lists of cryptids we use books and magazines that describe cryptids. Actually, no. Ghosts and cryptids fall under our pseudoscience and fringe theories guidelines, which advises (for good reason) that the best sources to describe fringe topics and ideas are sources that are independent of those ideas. In short, we don't let a fringe idea present itself on its own terms. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that is what they are being used for, they are not supporting anything more then inclusion of something as a Cryptid on that list, not for it being real.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, well, good luck. Cryptozoology sources can't agree on anything, everyone claims to be an authority, and every rumor or urban legend has been dubbed a cryptid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
That is not the source under discussion. So are the sources under discussion unreliable in general?, are are they only unreliable for the specific claims they are being unused to source?, What are they unreliable for?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm not sure what makes cryptomundo.com and mysteriousuniverse.org more reliable authorities on what or what is not a cryptid, than say, nationalcryptidsociety.org, or any other cryptozoology site on the internet. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • no these are not RS. They are not OK anyway as blogs, and are especially not OK for WP:FRINGE stuff like this. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Are maps exempt from WP:VERIFY?

The map in question is

Approximate map of the Iron Age kingdom of Israel (blue) and kingdom of Judah (yellow), with their neighbors (tan) (9th century BCE)

I cn tagged it as there was no source and recently an IP removed the tag twice, adding "approximate" and a source.[38] Our map says 9th century. The source says 733 BCE. Our map has differences in the boundaries, particularly Israel's. How can a source which shows a map from a different period with different boundaries be a source for this map? I'm actually asking two questions. Was my cn tag correct (I've tagged it in other articles), and is this an acceptable source? I don't object to a map at all so long as it's reliably sourced. I would prefer the source to be in the article, not just the map's page. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Would that not depend on the source for the map. As it is sourced the the JVL the question should be is the JVL RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Maps (and other images) should be ILLUSTRATIONS of information presented in the text of the article. It is that text which is required to be verifiable. So the question is... does this map illustrate information presented in the text of the article? If so, the next question is... is there another map which might better illustrate the same information? Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Blueboar we should create our maps according to the text that should be of course supported by WP:RS.If we will copy map from some other source that could a WP:COPYVIO--Shrike (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Maps should cite their sources, usually there are too many sources involved in making a map for them to all be cited in the text. There are a lot of complicated maps like this — Are editors responsible for going through every citation in the text to see if it's verified? — Any editor can challenge it if the sourcing isn't clear, so if you do all this work to create a map, it is really that hard to keep track of the sourcing and make it available?Seraphim System (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Maps should have a source - though verifying each line on a map is an issue. This particular map is based on [39] which does not cite a source. It is however very close border's wide to the JVL map (100 years later) - the main different that this map includes less territories east of the Jordan. There are maps on Wikipedia with much poorer sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be based on this 2006 map - [40] - for all kingdoms in the area - which doesn't have a source.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Maps are not an "exempt class" especially where they implicitly make certain claims which we would need WP:RS sourcing for. I would point out that maps are used and have been used in the past to make "political claims" about historic lands, especially in support of irredentist claims. And folks have gotten in trouble for using them in real life - note the PRC stamp "The Whole Country is Red" where Taiwan was in white. In short - maps are not exempt at all. Collect (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Map of England? Largely uncontentious, minimal sourcing required. Map of $DISPUTEDTERRITORY with relevance to $MILLENNIALONGCONFLICT and $CURRENTPOLITICALSHITSTORM? I want a stack of WP:RS that reaches all the way to Jimbo's beard. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, maps are not exempt from our usual sourcing requirements. This is true in all cases, but is doubly true in the cases Collect and JzG point out above. Neutralitytalk 22:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • For the question in the header -- no, maps are not exempt from V. For the two questions in the OP, my answers are: about the tag, "yes the tagging was correct" (fails V with respect to the source cited at the commons page, and it needs a citation that verifies it), and about whether the source is reliable; i say "meh". There are much better scholarly sources than JVL, and the map at JVL is sourced to this weird website. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Even better, Malwarebytes gives me a "Website blocked due to fraud" message when I go to that weird website. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Extreme layman's comment (I know a little about the Hebrew Bible, less about archaeology and almost nothing about cartography.) My copy of the Jewish Study Bible has on page 504 a map that seems to largely agree with this one on the relative positions of various settlements, although not many of them are the same ones because it depicts the time of Joshua. Page 685-ish (sorry; Kindle) has a map showing "the approximate boundaries between Israel, Judah and Philistia", and as approximations go it's in general agreement with this one, although its Philistia looks "fatter" than ours (Lachish is not marked, but Ekron and "Gath?" are). They don't give a southern border of Judah or a northern or eastern border of Israel (another map they give but I can't remember the page agrees roughly with our northwestern boundary). Also, their Shechem, Bethel and Jerusalem are all on a fairly straight line running north-south, which is not how ours is, and they interestingly have Ashdod (which we describe as a port city and don't imply it was ever not a port a city) some distance inland -- and the same is true of page 504 and at least one other map in between. Both the 685 map and another on page 696-7 has Bethel practically on the border, and the latter shows it nearly due west of Jericho, just barely north. I know we're dealing with approximations, but aren't most of these archeological sites that have been excavated? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't actually read any comments after Doug's first before writing the above; now that I have and saw Guy's remark about the MILLENNIALONGCONFLICT and POLITICALSITSHTORM: this actually raises the further question of whether IPs are allowed remove CN tags from such things as IPs are not allowed make edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; if the problem is the map making "Philistine states" narrower than my scholarly source does ... arrgh, what a mess. Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Washington Press

It appears to me that Washington Press may be fake news, or unreliable at best. See the article about a Texas school teacher who died because of complications with flu. Local ABC News presented the story accurately. I can't find any information about who funds the publication, their staff writers, etc. Need some input as to how to rate this source on the quality scale of RS. Atsme📞📧 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Not Reliable They appear to be a fairly obscure political propaganda website masquerading as a news outlet. Their website alone screams amateur. Almost every headline is sensationalist and employs the word "just" as in somebody (invariably on the right) just did something horrible. What little I could find on them via a Google suggests that to the extent anyone seems to have noticed them they are regarded as hard left in their political biases. That is not ipso facto evidence of being unreliable, but I can't find anything that suggests they have the kind of rigorous oversight and fact checking that one expects from RS sources. Unless/until that changes, I would oppose citing this entity for any claims of fact. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose use. Not even opinionated but propaganda-like. I did look for some kind of oversight and couldn't find anything. I do hate the term fake news.I would just say, not reliable per our standards.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC))
  • Not reliable - As Ad Orientem noted, sensationalist article titles with no proof of fact checking. However, on their About Me page, they state "In an age of fake news, we are a trusted source with a track-record of honesty and integrity"... debatable. Meatsgains(talk) 02:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment They have a profile page in the website Media Bias/Fact Check, which describes them as an extremely biased news source: "In review, Washington Press presents news with a borderline extreme left wing bias that always favors the left and is always anti-Trump and the political right. There is frequent and very strong use of loaded words in both headlines and articles such as this: “Trump just declared war on the First Amendment in an unhinged cabinet meeting.” The Washington Press usually sources their information to credible mainstream media outlets, however they sometimes use poor sources such as Shareblue, which has a mixed record with fact checking. Although we could not find a specific failed fact check by the Washington Press, we still rate them mixed factually due to the use of a known poor source and extremely loaded language that can be misleading and change the context of information. Overall, we rate Washington Press far left biased based on story selection that always favors the left and mixed for factual reporting." Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - No evidence of a track record of fact-checking, no identifiable editorial staff, no contact information beyond an e-mail... all the hallmarks of something we should stringently avoid. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Fake news site is not an unreasonable description: it masquerades as a news website, but isn't one. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Appears to have no editorial oversight at all.--MONGO 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Fakelore and sourcing

While building up WP:Folklore, today I revisited fakelore. As the article admirably makes clear, this is a controversial concept in folklore studies. However, that doesn't seem to have stopped editors from adding what they deem to be fakelore to the article, even when a source does not refer to it as fakelore. More eyes sourcing for this article would be appreciated. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail

The article is Terence Hogan, and I already know Daily Mail is unreliable but there are some circumstances it may be used. How about as a source for a daughter's recollection of her deceased father? The Daily Mail article is here. Hogan is mentioned in other sources (books, The Guardian, Independent, etc.) so some of the facts of the crimes, etc. are verifiable but not the parts about his family life, or some of the missing pieces about his role in the crimes. The article also corroborates some of the dates/times and location of Hogan, who was never caught/arrested. Can the Daily Mail be used to cite the daughter's recollection using inline text attribution? Atsme📞📧 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes - for the daughter's recollection about her father using inline citations and text attribution. Atsme📞📧 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Sorry, this is sensationalist claptrap, classic WP:TABLOID. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - we'd accept it if it were self-published, so we should accept it on the Mail. --GRuban (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Partly - Usable regarding her views of her relationship with her father but not for factual information, especially related to criminal activity. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Partly I am not sure about this. On the one hand it is the DM, and thus may is "sensationalist claptrap", on the other hand it is his daughter. But I wonder why no RS have picked up on this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No because it's a primary source about a criminal - the Mail have probably scanned it for libel (or at least libel they can't afford to get away with) but nothing else. After "Enemies of the People" I would not touch the Daily Mail with a barge pole. As Slatersteven suggests, why did the Mail think it was important to mention, but no other newspaper did? I realise the Mail does cover stories about women or fashion more than other papers, but more often than not these days it seems to be a front for soft porn (when I looked at the source, I got "Katie Price, 39, flaunts tiny thong in sheer dress as she parties with James Argent, 30, amid claims her third marriage to Kieran is finally over" - at least The Sun was actually honest and upfront about what Page 3 was!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, some of the information is actually mentioned in books, obits and a few RS but the Daily Mail is the only one I'm aware of that published the exclusive by the daughter, (possibly even the Sun & Mirror included it but I haven't checked - all the same company, I think). I have dates of other news sources, such as Daily Express 28/11/62, pg 3 that I'm going to try WP:RX to see if I can get access. There's also this book which was criticized for being too academic. *lol* It includes police investigation reports, and corroborates some of18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC) the daughter's story about her Dad. Hogan was believed to be a suspect but the police couldn't prove it, he was too crafty, and was one of the robbers who got away. I'm leaning to limiting it to inline text attribution quoting what daughter says about father as others have agreed would be acceptable - and citing books that corroborate some of the other things she discusses in the article. Also keep in mind that this info dates back to the 1960s before The Daily Mail became the tabloid it is today. The former close regarding this tabloid also used the date caveat. Atsme📞📧 16:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No The Daily Mail ban was a very bad decision, but that doesn't justify overriding it. Exceptions include attributed opinions / selfpub / etc., but I don't see how they'd apply here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
It was not a "ban" - the close of that discussion noted the following: The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases. Atsme📞📧 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Use euphemism if you like. The "historical" issue that was discussed in the wp:dailymai RfC was St Paul's Survives from 1940. The article being discussed here is from 2011. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not use: intricate detail cited to non RS. The article can do without. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - In a very specific situation like this should be acceptable per the RFC close. PackMecEng (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Seems a perfectly valid reason to use DM here. Plus it also reminds the people who want to puritanically purge DM from Wikipedia that it wasn't a complete ban on the paper. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes As long as it is attributed as "According to his daughter..." While we know DM has modified or taken statements out of context, there's far too much here from a single person to see how this could be taken as such a case. --Masem (t) 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. DAILYMAIL seems clear enough, Wikipedia is to assume anything they print is a potential fabrication, and if it is believed what they have produced isn't a fabrication in a specific case which isn't historical or about the Mail itself, then it should be possible to obtain it from a better source, one which has independently verified the story. Monkey Bar Freak (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ^^New editor as of the 19th - has only 5 edits^^ Atsme📞📧 04:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • no, yes the DMRFC left some space for using DM. It is very good for sports, for example. Where it is exactly terrible is typical tabloid stuff, exactly like this. If the only place where this is found, is in the DM, it is probably UNDUE anyway. If it is discussed in higher quality sources, use them. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No since the Daily Mail is regarded as an unreliable source, we cannot assume that anything whatsoever it says is true, including reporting of what anyone says. It is only reliable for its own opinions, which does not even include the opinions of its columnists. TFD (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. The Daily Mail can't be expected to get anything outside of the sports section right. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Can reddit comments from article subjects be cited as reliable self-published sources?

On an article I intend to improve, specifically Discord, there is some important information about the article subject I want to cite, such as that it (which is a software company) has publicly stated that it has no intention to open its source (reddit comment source)—which has been, and remains, proprietary—despite inviting open-source communities to use its software (source). Unfortunately, the company is not very vocal about these matters and the majority of this information comes from reddit comments in the official subreddit of the company by official representatives and spokespeople of the company (designated as such by the subreddit).

So long as I cite the specific comment's permalink (perhaps with an archived copy), would this be an acceptable use of self-published social media content per WP:SELFPUB? I have searched the Help desk archives and the closest I could find is 2016 November 18 § Citing a Reddit AMA?, which seems to maybe support doing so, but this is obviously a somewhat different case. I have also searched the RS/N archives and the closest I could find are the following, none of which specifically address this issue with any clear consensus:

My guess is probably not even though it might technically pass WP:SELFPUB, but I might as well ask anyway. Perhaps some future archive searcher will find this helpful. Thanks for whatever help you all are willing to provide. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 19:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Reddit as with other discussion boards and forums isn't considered a reliable source. If you want to include such info you should probably see if a reliable source has reported about it. Gotitbro (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Such sources are indeed not generally considered reliable, Gotitbro; however, self-published social media content by a subject is acceptable under certain circumstances and qualifies as verifiable, including from Reddit. (Curiously, Reddit is mentioned in WP:SELFPUB, but not in WP:SELFSOURCE.) I understand that reddit comments are generally considered to obviously be unreliable (and for good reason), but this is a very specific case in which the reddit comments are from the software company that owns and operates the subject itself, that subject being the namesake software of that company.
Does this specific case qualify under these special conditions? That is the crux of this matter. Short of the CEO making the statements, this is basically the closest one could meaningfully get to the software itself (or Discord Inc.) stating anything about itself on Reddit. If this does not qualify as a reliable source per WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFSOURCE, then perhaps we need to clarify as much in those sections.
If a better source was available, such as an official blog post or a tech site news report detailing the same information, I would not even bother with this edge-case scenario since I do not want to be citing reddit comments either. However, Discord Inc.—which tries incredibly hard to be, like, totally kewl bruh—often communicates official positions through its subreddit and I want to ensure that information is included given its importance to the readers. It is not much of a surprise to me that Discord Inc. has not been more vocal about its refusal to open its source code, either, since it actively encourages open-source software and communities on its platform and opening its source has been a perennial proposal and complaint from its users. With all this in mind, how should I proceed in this specific case? More importantly, what policy or guideline improvement can we derive from this situation, since it seems technically unclear here?
Thanks for your time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 20:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Discord but if you feel this is important you can try including it if the statement was made from an official account. Also tag the material with [better source needed] or [unreliable source?]. Gotitbro (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
While it would be reliable for what the company reported, reliance on primary sources can create a neutrality problem. Information reported by a company may be misleading. It could be for example that the company intends to open its source, and made the statement in order to counter rumors. In that case we would be repeating false information, possibly to the detriment of the public. Fortunately, professional journalists are able to use judgment when reading company statements and determine whether they are credible. If a reliable source picks up a statement then it might be proper to report it. If the statement is questionable, one would expect the journalists to note that. TFD (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Company registers RfC

Talk:List of company registers

This begs for deletion at AfD because most of the entries have no article and do not appear notable. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia does not include external links in lists but references with them might be appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking as well but I wanted to push for an RfC for sources before that. Gotitbro (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

An article from NYC Transit about NYC Subway signals published in a predatory journal

For context, I (epicgenius (talk)) haven't posted this edit. I wanted to put some details, with a source, into the Signaling of the New York City Subway. It was written by an employee for New York City Transit Authority, the operator of New York City Subway, as well as an employee for Parsons Brinckerhoff, a NYCTA contractor. However, when I tried to save the edit I got this: "Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as introducing references to a predatory open access journal. If you are confident that you want to cite this source anyway, please click 'Publish changes' again. Note that citations to predatory journals are routinely removed."

  1. Source. https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/9781845644949/9781845644949002FU1.pdf
  2. Article. Signaling of the New York City Subway (didn't actually save the edit)
  3. Content. Well, I haven't actually added it, but here was what I was going to add:

The MTA's form of CBTC uses a reduced form of the old fixed-block signaling system, which serves as an "auxiliary wayside system".[Witpress Source]:16 On lines equipped with CBTC, this has resulted in increased maintenance costs for the double signaling system.[Another Source] When CBTC is in operation on a line, that line's block signals display a flashing green indicator.[Witpress Source]:16

[...]

The CBTC contract was awarded to joint venture of Siemens, Union Switch & Signal, and L.K. Comstock & Company Inc. in late 1999. Installation of the signal system was begun in 2000.[Witpress Source]:14

My question is, should I even use this source? epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If someone has tagged that as a predatory journal it is probably for a good reason. Predatory journals should mostly be avoided as they have little or no review of articles. If you want to add that information probably use a better source (which should be there if the content published has merit). Gotitbro (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Horrorview.com

These diffs[41][42] makes me want to ask if Died with Boots On at Horrorview.com is a reliable (and notable) source. Especially since we have other sources saying it's a documentary. // Liftarn (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Liftarn:That does not appear to be a reliable source. Also, a mockumentary is a movie presented as a documentary. i.e., its fictional. From the description of this title (https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Atomic-Cafe/60022779) it just appears to be a compilation of different footage, it is not a mockumentary in its basic sense. Gotitbro (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Kworb.net

I saw an user added to Wikipedia:CHART that this website kworb.net can be used to validate YouTube views and Spotify numbers. But nothing validates they post official data. For example, it claims "Look What You Made Me Do" did 49.9M views in one day, while Billboard said it did 43.2M. How many factual errors they "estimate" and post.. I believe that website should be avoided. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It is a personal website/blog of someone (http://kworb.net/faq.html) which doesn't even site cite its data source. Unreliable, no editorial oversight should be avoided. Gotitbro (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur; this is a rather dubious reference. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Reddit.com: Citations in 500+ articles

A search for "Reddit.com" pops up more than 500 citations in article space. I estimate that 85-90% of these cites are improper. (A small minority may fall under a WP:SELFPUB exception). Does anyone want to assist in culling through these and removing the bad ones? Neutralitytalk 23:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes this appears to be a problem, seen these pop-up for factual statements as well. I suspect removing all of them wouldn't cause much issues either. The only case where these might be appropriate are AMAs or Reddit announcements even then if such events are notable they would've gotten picked up by news outlets. In all, Reddit is a forum and shouldn't be cited. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with assessing reliability of Ukrainian site used in Tetyana Ramus article

The article Tetyana Ramus draws extensively on http://ukrainka.org.ua/tetyana-ramus. Is there anyone with knowledge of Ukrainian who could offer an opinion on whether this is a reliable source? It looks a bit self-published to me, but I'm just judging by the general feel of the site without being able to read the content. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

European Aviation Safety Agency‎

I think I know the answer to this question, but would appreciate other views: at European Aviation Safety Agency‎, is this website an independent reliable source for a mass of detail about its rules and regulations? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger Waters Controversy: Request for Comment

There is a RfC at the White Helmets Talk page which may interest people on this board. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nordstadtblogger.de

Google translation of the "about us" page

This is a small, German-language local news organization in the Northern District of Dortmund, Germany. Someone objected because of the word "blogger" in the name. They have an actual office, but it's a non-profit/volunteer organization. It's run by the former editor and editorial director of the Westfälische Rundschau, a mid-sized mainstream regional daily newspaper. Nordstadtblogger does general local news stories, with a focus on social themes. They tend to be in support of immigrants and against right-wing extremism.

I found an article where they received a civic award presented by the District Mayor, who described them as "experienced and competent journalists" who achieved "balanced, independent reporting", and "show how innovatively one can develop good journalism on the Internet without having large media groups behind them." The article also says "(Almost) All who write there have a sound journalistic education and often worked for decades in the editorial offices of the Westfälische Rundschau and the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung".

I've used this article about an exhibition at the Dortmund Museum for Art and Art History as a source for some basic facts about Münsterstraße, one of the main streets/neighborhoods in the district, which was the subject of the exhibition. It would also help show notability for Münsterstraße. So I'd like to get an opinion as to whether it could be considered a reliable source for this and for other typical local news reports, despite having "blogger" in the name. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=842266814"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA