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: [].
  • 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 MiszaBot II.
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

Rudolf Schumann


Sources on Estonian police battalion


  • Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad
  • "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)
  • The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:
  • "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.
  • In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."
The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

  • Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link
It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

  • "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.
"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):
  • "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).
K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


I am working my way through a rebuild of United Blood Nation, a prison/street gang. (There seems to be a lot of unsourced info and some confusion with the tangentially related "Bloods".)

One of the best sources (in terms of content) that I have to work with is what appears to be a redacted copy of a USDOJ report. If it is what it says it is, it is a fantastic source.

Unfortunately, the only source I have for this report is a posting at[1] The site, a Wikileaks kind of thing, has said, "We do expect to get false documents but it’s not our job to sort that out."

Thoughts? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Then no, as they do not have any editorial oversight anything they host could be junk.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Except that is a legitimate document. The NDIC produced a lot of those information reports on various gangs and that one has the product number clearly shown. It can be properly referenced and used. Now, whether or not you choose to use the online reference is kind of a different topic, but the document can be cited as an offline source. 04:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
How can you be certain that it's a legitimate document if its only source is cryptome? Even if parts of it look accurate, it could have been altered by whoever submitted it to them. If we could be completely certain that it is a document produced by the USDOJ, it could probably be usable (although some people might argue that it's a WP:PRIMARY source), but I don't see how you can be sure of that if the only source is a website that specifically disavows fact-checking. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Because it has an actual publication number from a government agency. I have a copy of it myself. They did a whole series. The host site may "disavow" fact checking, but that doesn't preclude the document from being cited as an offline source because we're not citing cryptome, we're citing the government document. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This is also effectively WP:OR. If no other published soruce has considered the content worthy of mention, it probbaly isn't. Martinlc (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • How is a federal government document OR? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a primary source that no secondary sources have considered significant enough to summarise, analyse or cite. The edirot is doing their own OR in finding and using this infromation which nobody else has.Martinlc (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • do they have it at WikiSource? Elinruby (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Do they have this document? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Books published only on Amazon

Are books published only on Amazon considered reliable? Here is an example. There is no publisher listed, other than the author, and no ISBN. I have no reason to think that there is anything wrong with this book. On the other hand, I have no idea if it was edited or even read by a second human. This book is used in the First Presbyterian Church (Coweta, Oklahoma) article, so that raised the question for me. I suppose it's part of a larger question about self-publishing in general, not just books. Leschnei (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a publisher listed, the author herself. This is how Amazon handles books sold as kindle downloads. No fact-checking of any kind, and anyone can do it by themselves. Treat it like any other self-published work. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Amazon even admits it is self publishing Morty C-137 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all, that's pretty clear. Leschnei (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

where a "blacklisted source" is the best source - what do we do

In Robert Young (endurance runner), mention is made of his sponsor obtaining an expert report on a controversy. Mention of the actual report was deleted using the claim that the source is "blacklisted" even though the edit did not give a link to the blacklisted site as such, nor is the use of the site remotely near "spam." [2] shows the removal of actual legitimate content with the assertion "Removing blacklisted URL." Wikipedia, moreover, has an article on "Skins (sportswear)" and links to that same "blacklisted" site. So is use of the same site now improper where it is the "best source" for a claim? Collect (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

In a biography of a living person, any mention of cheating should not be presented unless it has been covered in reliable secondary sources. A report obtained by a sponsor is not a reliable source. I suggest removing any mention of cheating from the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The "accusation" has been made repeatedly by The Guardian and Sports Illustrated by the way. I thunk they met WP:RS, but not enough for the protectors of the BLP (I am not known as shying away from protecting BLPs but in the case at hand, the sources appear strong). The Guardian blog by Sean Ingle Sports Illustrated and a bunch of other unreliable(?) sources of that ilk. It meets my own very stringent requirements, in short. Collect (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's an e-commerce site, so as an RS it's pretty much a non-starter. The editor removing may have left an edit summary that was debatable, but the removal itself is a pretty damn good edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Problem is that The Guardian and Sports Illustrated regard the charges as more than credible. The link is not to any e-commerce page, by the way. Collect (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The link is to a page on an e-commerce web site. The fact that there's not information about and an "add to cart" button for the A400 Women's speed sports bra at $79.99 is immaterial. If this press release is legit, then it should be able to be sourced elsewhere. If not, then it's not reliable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can Robert Spencer be quoted within an article about the authenticity of an Islamic document?

The article in which the source is being used is: Ashtiname of Muhammad.

Can Robert Spencer be quoted in a section of the article about the authenticity of the document to support the statement that:

the authenticity of the document has been challenged by some writers/commentators

The quote, found in this source, states that "There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a)."

No, the man is obviously biased and not a recognized authority on such matters. Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That would LITERALLY be like quoting Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels about Jewish scripture. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Also I am reasonably sure that "PJ Media" does not qualify as a Reliable Source under the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources rules. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

<blink>Is there really an editor who believe the most punchable man in recent memory is a reliable source for anything except his own beliefs? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
MPants - you've confused Robert Spencer (author) with Richard B. Spencer. They ain't the same thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The OP just had an exchange about this here: User_talk:Eperoton#Spencer_not_a_RS. In that exchange (and edit summaries at Ashtiname of Muhammad), Neutrality, Kansas Bear and myself have argued that Spencer isn't a RS. I'll just copy some of my comments here: Per WP:SOURCE, reliability is based on "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In the area of history, this usually means scholarly reputation, which would include specialization, as Kansas Bear has noted, as can be established by a track of peer-reviewed publications, academic appointments, etc. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", so a MA in anything is not basis for reliability in itself. WP:SOURCE notes more generally "Books published by respected publishing houses", and this opens the door for cautious use of pop-history books written by non-specialists (though many editors, like myself, avoid using them). However, Spencer's books on Islam are carried by boutique publishers which specialize in works of non-scholarly polemics on Islamic history and other topics. P.S. As Morty C-137 points out, this particular citation doesn't even come from a book. Eperoton (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No, Spencer is not a RS for anything but his own opinion - and that is rarely relevant anywhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Everyone is reliable for his own opinion whatever to include it attributed its question of WP:NPOV and not for this board.Shrike (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, positively not. Not a reliable source, and fringe. Neutralitytalk 06:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Heavens above, let's not use hate sites as sources! Zerotalk 08:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Several remarks: first, this is not the white supremacist Robert Spencer, but a different one. Second, PJ Media does not seem to be a hate site. Third, however, inclusion of Spencer's point of view is clear undue weight, particularly in light of his well-known extremist bias (e.g., Jihad Watch). I agree with Neutrality that it is fringe. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Ooops. My bad. Struck.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Robert Spencer is a founder of Stop Islamization of America, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describes as a "hate group" and he was excluded from the United Kingdom, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The expression "some writers" is weasel-wording, since Spencer is not an expert on Islam. So he is not an expert and his opinion on the authenticity is of no value. In some cases (and this does not appear to be one of them), fringe views can be mentioned, but only if they are identified as such and are sourced to third parties. We might say for example that conspiracy theorists question the Warren Commission. TFD (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
What TFD said. (I read up on Robert after mistaking him for Richard and realized that my earlier sentiment would actually have worked if I'd made it into a metaphor). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I think it could use some eyes.

The problem is that while all agree that the manuscript is an interesting historical artifact (even if it's a forgery), mainstream academia seems to regard it as just an interesting curiosity, and not a manuscript of any importance. So much of the research is done by either enthusiastic amateurs or academics from other fields.

You see the problem. A lot of the research on the manuscript is made up of self-published work from non-academics, and a bunch of the sources are from web-pages that appear to just be run by enthusiasts.

I hesitate to call it exactly "Fringe", most of it seems reasonably grounded, at least to a layperson, but much of it is not backed by an obvious academic consensus and the talk-page debates about what to include or not to include into the article seems to be coming down to thinly veiled judgement calls more than I'd like to admit.

The situation is complicated by this edit where (apparently) one of the amateur researchers removes his old self-published theories from the page, while there is an ongoing debate about including his new, completely contradictory self-published theory.

I'm not even sure what I think should be changed if anything, but I think the article would benefit from an uninvolved experienced editor glancing over it. Thank you.

ApLundell (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@ApLUndell: I don't think this is the best place for a discussion. I'd suggest the fringe noticeboard, WP:FTN, because although it may not be fringe in itself, the discussion around it is pretty fringy. A source that doesn't seem to be used in our article is the 2016 publication of a facsimile by Yale including some scholarly essays. This New Yorker article gives a glimpse into what some of these say. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@ApLundell: Just notice that an Amazon.Com review says the book has "six chapters dedicated to the history of the manuscript and the attempts that have been made to decipher it. While these chapters contain little new information, they are well researched, and cover what can be known about the manuscript without straying into the realm of unprovable hypothesis." So definitely, these would be excellent sources and perhaps give us guidance as to what should be included in our article. I think I'll start a discussion at FTN myself. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that WP:FTN is the better venue. I also agree with the OP about historians considering this an interesting curiosity, and not of any major historical significance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Self-published sources are only permissible in articles about the subject or where they are an established expert. If a "fringe" view is noteworthy, it will be covered in reliable third-party sources and must be sourced to them. TFD (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Sweden


I have posted a list of statistics, and other information links, to the talk page of the "Crime in Sweden" article:

I would greatly appreciate help with input regarding which of them that would be fine to incorporate into the article. Thank you. David A (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please re-post your question paying attention to the instructions given for the use of this noticeboard. We are here to advise on specific proposals, not give wide-ranging advice on how to construct articles from sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, there has been fruitless discussion regarding the validity of the source list that I posted, and I wonder if somebody unbiased could evaluate which of them that are acceptable. Another editor in the discussion told me to come here. My apologies if I have misunderstood. David A (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Acceptable for what? All sources are reliable for something. Please give "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article" proposed to be supported by a source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, this is a good place. But it's not our job to do your work. Sources are not, as a rule, reliable or unreliable in an absolute sense, but only within the context they are going to be used for. As an example, China Daily is reliable for the weather in Beijing, or for stock quotes, or for who the chairman of the CPC is. It's not a good source on the question who should control the Spratly Islands. Similarly, the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica will be a decent source on Newton's laws of motion, but not on current trends in rocketry. That's why we ask for the information we ask for in the edit note, and also on top of this page. Take what you think are the best one or two sources and tell us what you want to use them for. Then we can (possibly) tell you if they support the claim, and if they are reliable in that context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the following is, what I think is the most crucial information, as the data mostly comes from official institutions, such as BRÅ/Brottsförebyggande Rådet (the Swedish crime prevention bureau), Folkpartiet, Statistiska Centralbyrån, or the Swedish Police Department. Help would be very appreciated:

The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015:

There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015:

In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden:

To compare with 5920 the year 2015:

According to statistics assembled by the Swedish party Folkpartiet (while they were a part of the Swedish government together with other middle- or slightly right-wing parties) with data from the official statistics institution "Statistiska Centralbyrån" there were 155 criminal areas in the country in 2012, to compare with only 3 in 1990, and according to data similarly assembled by the economist Tino Sanandaji, there were 186 in 2014. The standards were apparently later changed to only include 55 such areas according to the Swedish police department (while the Green Party and the Social Democrats were in power instead): David A (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think the issue here as much one of neutrality as reliability. So for example while Brå, as a govt agency, is a reliable source for items of statistical information, it is a primary source for its own data and so editors cannot sift, analyze and present such data without engaging in original research. OTOH analysis and commentary on data provided by Brå is secondary, and so viable for use. The distinction can be subtle. As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia should not be presenting statistical information unless some other decent secondary publication also discusses/analyses that same information; this is to ensure due weight, and so maintain neutrality. I would not use material published by political parties (e.g. Folkpartiet) to make assertions in Wikipedia, as it is likely agenda-driven/partial. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so if I find regular newspapers articles that refer to these numbers, I can use them? It is a bit of a problem though, as, until recently, the Swedish media has mostly tended to hush down such issues. David A (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No, you can't (Nice touch with the conspiracy theory there btw). Unless a reliable source says it it can not go into the article. Also what goes into the article must be related to the subject of the article. For instance you can't use raw statistics to make the claim that people with darker skin is genetically more criminal. // Liftarn (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not a conspiracy theory. You must have noticed yourself that our media has turned far more transparent regarding our problems in recent months.
Also, I do not appreciate that you accuse me of being racist towards people who simply have a different skin colour. All humans have virtually identical genetics. Extreme differences in culture, ideology, and education are another issue entirely. David A (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This looks like an attempt at nasty POV related WP:SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That is also very insulting. I am trying to use reliable statistical facts, rather than pure opinion pieces. David A (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I must agree with my esteemed colleagues that the "hush down" comment sounds an alarm bell. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Just stick to what is reported in the very best sources, and all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I will try to find some sources that refer to these statistics when I find the time. I am very busy and stressed out in general. David A (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
David, to back up my mild aspersion, you've admitted as much... while referring at least in part to Muslims you stated you "spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country and "feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country" and you "get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole" ([3], [4]). You've railed about "POV-pushing systemic censorship" on Wikipedia and think that "Wikipedia seems to become increasingly slanted and inaccurate, and less neutral, fact-based, NPOV" and "do not see the problem with simply supporting people who fight for causes that I believe in" ([5], [6]; see also [7], [8], [9], [10]). You clearly have an anti-Islam POV ([11], [12], [13]). Based on this, your comments on Crime in Sweden and Immigration to Sweden appear to be attempts to push your POV using WP:SYNTH (see [14]). Frankly, this is something worthy of ANI at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks for proving his point. Crime in Sweden has been going up, it has also been hushed up. Journalists are often told not to report on crime or not to mention demographics, which ironically is one reason why many Swedes are going to extreme sites for news, the mainstream news is not reporting it. At the very least, the statistics for Crime in Sweden should have the BRA data since that is pure, raw statistics. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I am not sure how I proved his point other than showing he wishes to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Do you have any reliable sources to back up that claim? If not, it's just agreeing with his conspiracy theory of information suppression. You are also a seasoned editor and know that we cannot add anything to articles that are not supported explicitly by reliable sources. SYNTH is not allowed. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I am openly terrified of extreme fascism and genocidal bigotry, including Islamism/Salafism, but have not made myself guilty of anything other than this potential thought crime as far as I am aware. I occasionally do a stupid edit here and there due to being very stressed out and overworked at the time, but always relent afterwards. The worst I have done is complain at times due to lacking normal mental filters due to my autism. David A (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean, I barely even do any edits to Wikipedia articles other than reverts of vandalism. David A (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec)When we are reporting on crime statistics, we can use the government statistics agency to report the raw numbers, as the article currently does. We can't interpret the numbers without a RS, but we can say in 2008, there were X crimes, and in 2009 there were X crimes, etc. As for articles that discuss the numbers, I have seen a few, but I am not sure what they are needed for since we're not talking about interpretation here, just reporting the numbers. Here are a few though, (I took out Breitbart and others) [15] , [16], [17] Sir Joseph (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that regular Swedish newspapers are gradually turning much better at reporting the actual news about all of the crime in this country, so alternative news sources, and regular newspapers from other countries are not nearly as necessary anymore. However, our crime statistics have increased so much, and our police is so helpless, that it may be too little, too late. David A (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I have no problems whatsoever with secular Muslims, and greatly admire reformists such as Maajid Nawaz and Raheel Raza. David A (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It's highly debatable whether you can report raw numbers, since if these have not been discussed in secondary sources it's very hard to establish due weight: Wikipedia editors cannot set themselves up as arbiters of what is significant: sifting which figures to present is a form of WP:OR, which is prohibited by policy. We should be striving to present accepted knowledge, not raw data. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Express and National Review aren't high on my list, but at least there's some sources out there claiming the same thing. But sources certainly vary in their opinion on the topic ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). I'm trying to separate my academic side from this, but we know that crime can be "created" by better reporting and these sources seem to disagree about (1) the source of the trend and (2) the nature of the trend. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Sweden (in particular rape statistics) has been politicized and opinionated on for years within Sweden but probably even more so in the US and the UK, where it has become an important tool for conservatives or nationalists to argue either against immigration or the (economic/social) "Scandinavian model" in general. Due to that high politicization it is advisable if possible to restrict sourcing as much as possible to scholarly sources and stay away from various news media outlets. Foxnews seems like an obvious no-go as a source in this regard, but i'd avoid the other examples linked above (telegraph, washington post, politifact) as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: As far as the Swedish sources above are concerned. Bra (roughly like national institute/agency for crime statistics) seems a reliable source. However there is the issue of WP:SYNTH, i.e. WP editors can not cherry pick and combine individual figures from different Bra publications to draw their own conclusions. The various Swedish websites do not appear to be appropriate sources (at least not at first glance).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a reliable secondary source about the statistics at but it don't really say what the POV pushers want it to and I think that's the root of their problem. "In general terms, violence has decreased in Sweden in the last 20 years." "Data from the Swedish Crime Survey shows that in terms of lethal violence, there has generally been a downward trend over the past 25 years." "The studies show that the majority of those suspected of crimes were born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents. The studies also show that the vast majority of people from foreign backgrounds are not suspected of any crimes." "researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden." "Swedish government agencies have nothing to gain from covering up statistics and facts; they seek an open and fact-based dialogue. Sweden is an open society governed by a principle of public access to official documents." "The Swedish economy is strong. Despite the high costs of immigration, Sweden recorded a public finance surplus in 2015, and the forecasts indicate that the surplus is set to grow until 2020." // Liftarn (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How is this Swedish state debt overview an economic surplus (and this is not even an economic recession), and how does the highest amount of hand grenade usage in any country not currently at war, 186 criminal areas (or 55 depending on the information source), constant reports in regular newspapers about stone-throwing or car-burning mobs, and 14 times as high rape statistics as previously translate into increasing security? And how does me simply quoting reliable statistics and newspaper investigations translate into POV-pushing? David A (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"How is this an economic surplus" - Look up the difference between "debt" and "deficit". Currently Sweden's government is running a 1% of GDP surplus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And I think that sort of highlights the problem with "you simply quoting reliable statistics". You have to actually understand what the statistics are first. Anyway, original research and all that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And is a site run by a Roger Karlsson in Hägersten. Is he a reliable source? // Liftarn (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
As is stated within the page, it is based on official data from Riksgälden, and the point is that our debt is constantly increasing, despite being in an economic boom period. What happens when we enter a recession? David A (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
That link don't work for me, but I found Fakta om statsskulden that says the debt is 31% of BNP, down from over 70% in 1995. So while it may increase in absolute value it goes down as a percent of BNP. There are also some diagrams for you at [24]. But I don't really follow your reasoning. If the national debt goes up non-Swedes are more criminal? I don't see how one thing proves the other. // Liftarn (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You were the one who quoted information from the leftist government regarding that we have an economic surplus despite the enormous costs for immigration, and that only 53% of immigrants have real jobs, if I remember correctly. It is not directly related to crime, as far as I am aware, as even unemployed immigrants in Sweden get lots of social security benefits. David A (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You are still utterly and completely confused about the difference between a deficit/surplus and the level of debt. Just leave the interpretation of statistics to people (reliable secondary sources) who know what they're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, getting away from inaccurate insults towards me personally, and focusing on the main issue, I have found various major newspapers that refer to the growth from 3 to 186 criminal areas: David A (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you made some sort of filtering yourself. All of the links you provided are editorials and not useable as sources. // Liftarn (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You seem to use any rationale whatsoever in order to keep accurate information from the article. Linking to the study by Tino Sanandaji, the one from Folkpartiet, and the several major newspaper articles in combination should rationally definitely fulfill our requirements for inclusion as well as most other sources included in Wikipedia articles. David A (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that we can't know if it's accurate or not without reliable sources to back it up. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is about documenting what reliable sources say. See for instance WP:NOTTRUTH if you are having problem with that concept. // Liftarn (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but you have made a habit of spreading the notion that any criticism towards the current Swedish system must automatically be a slanted far-right conspiracy with your page Sweden-bashing, and to attempt to filter away any negative information whatsoever regarding the situation in our country. That is far more POV than my attempt to insert some balancing information to the page, without removing your preferred references.
We do have several official statements by leading journalists at major newpapers quoting the studies in question. We both know that this is perfectly acceptable and reliable by Wikipedia's usual standards, and that you would gladly have inserted it if it provided a positive portrayal instead, even if it was considerably less well-sourced. However, I could continue to try to find even more references if you wish, but at a certain point it starts to get ridiculous, and blatantly evident that you are using excuses rather than honesty in dealing with this subject matter. David A (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to read up on what a reliable source is. // Liftarn (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Whu would one journalistic newspaper article that makes a statement regarding its position be less reliable than another from the same magazine, especially in conjunction with several other sources, including statistical studies? It seems like a convenient excuse. Regardless, here are some more articles that I think reference the 186 criminal areas in 2012, but I may have made some mostake, as I am very tired: David A (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out above already stick to scholarly sources and their interpretation of statistics. I can't really help getting the impression that you're attempting to push criticism at all cost and trying to get it rubber-stamped here, but that won't happen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the original study by the economist Tino Sanandaji is a scholarly paper as far as I am aware, and has been quoted frequently by major newspapers. I have seen lots of Wikipedia articles quote many newspaper articles with considerably less solid basis, so I do not understand why this should be any different? David A (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
So is the study ordered by Folkpartiet, if that would be preferable: David A (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, Tino Sanandaji also refers to the 186 criminal areas, as well as both his own study and that of Folkpartiet, in his economics book "Massutmaning" (2017), if that would be preferable. David A (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, self-published sources can not be used in that way. See WP:SELFPUB // Liftarn (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The reason we rely on reliable secondary sources for any conclusions as a result of statistics is they are easily deliberately mis-used (for nefarious/political agendas) or mis-understood in error by those who lack adaquate training in the subject. A primary government source would generally be reliable for the basic information but little else. A relevant Swedish dept saying 'There were X reported violent crimes in 2016' would be primary and reliable for that fact only. Lacking context however, this figure is meaningless. If the figure was lower for the previous year, has there been an increase in the total, but a decrease for % of the population? Have their been (as happened in the UK in the last few years) changes in the way the police record the crimes leading to drastic changes in the figures? Absent context provided by a reliable secondary source discussing all the issues, the raw statistics can be used to support any position. For a contentious issue like crime, strong sources are required to justify any conclusions. Politically motivated individuals self-publishing would be very unlikely to qualify. However a notable (wiki-definition) economist published by a reputable publisher would not be deemed unreliable just because they have been publically critical of the government policies - they have been critical because their expert opinion and evaluation of the evidence leads them to that conclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Entertainment Tonight and Idolator (website)

Hi all. I am having hard time believing these 2 websites are credible for music criticism and journalism. References in question are: 1 and 2.

Both of these sites would not see the light of day on Metacritic, I can't find any info online let alone their websites that lead me to believe they are reputable. Entertainment Tonight is a gossip website. I can't find anything about the writers of the articles showing that they have a journalistic background apart from the Entertainment Tonight writer having done articles for sister gossip websites. Idolator I find extremely amateur using stan culture terms such as "slay" and "bop" in their reviews which are almost always positive. With such an array of reputable music sources such as Pitchfork, Spin (magazine), NME etc why should sites like Idolator and ET be allowed to interpret a song or album's genre, let alone used as a source for music reviews.

I was hoping to gather a second opinion as to whether these sources should be handled on a case-by-case basis or included in WP:ALBUMAVOID. Thank you. Abi-Maria (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would at least think for ET that everything that would be appropriate to add (eg not celeb gossip) should be easily found in more established trade magazines like Variety, Hollywood Report, Entertainment Weekly, etc. The fact they otherwise engage in a lot of gossip (not National Inquirer/TMZ levels but approaching that) would make any uncorroborated facts that aren't gossipy be questionable. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Duane Alexander Miller, Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census

Daune Alexander Miller published this document Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census on this social network (which "is not a university or institution for higher learning and so under current standards it would not qualify for the ".edu" top-level domain") and is one of the two ( the other is Matt Gruber) prominent figure of the TCIIS:

"The Christian Institute of Islamic Studies seeks to equip the church to lead the Muslim world to faith in Jesus Christ by helping create a vision for Muslim evangelism, a compassion for Muslim people, and fervor for sharing the gospel with Muslims."

while the WEC International :

"is an interdenominational mission sending agency of Evangelical tradition".

Regarding the data provided Duane: "for more details on our data sources, see" The Joshua Project is " a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the fewest followers of Christ. Accurate, updated ethnic people group information is critical for understanding and completing the Great Commission. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9-10 show that there will be some from every tribe, tongue, nation and people before the Throne."

That collects the data in this way:

"Joshua Project is not a formal research organization, but rather seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole."

Sadly in the "data_sources" page there are no data.

The author declares that he has published " a global census": the problem is that a census is "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc. [1] So no, it's clearly not a census of any kind. Far from thath. And it's clearly not the pew research center, even though in some pages of wk they are located next to each other: so it makes no sense for these random numbers to be put together with those provided by recognized research center. AlessandroDe (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had provided the edit diffs that you think problematic. It appears the guy has a PhD in the subject and experience. But, I’d agree that the source is not RS as it doesn’t appear to be peer-reviewed or quoted elsewhere. Although, I would be a tad more careful with your edit comments. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The journal this article was published in is by all appearances a legit peer-reviewed journal. Eperoton (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

For example regarding Algeria the number provided by Duane Miller is 380,000 Muslim converted to Christianity. A big difference from what has been reported by the PEW (60.000 christians), or by a document i found, redacted by the United States Department of State in 2012, thath estimates between 30,000 and 70,000 christian and takes into account the fact that the country host a certain number of illegal, sub-saharian immigrant of christian faith awaiting the right occasion to reach europe.

So since the source is biased, since it's clearly not a census and claims numbers that are not reported elsewhere, in my opinion this source must be at least contextualized. AlessandroDe (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • This article was published in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. It's peer-reviewed and well respected, with no controversies surrounding it that I've ever heard of (or can find with a google search). It's a good source, provided the claim it is used to support is verifiable within it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The source appears to be reliable. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Many peer-reviewed articles are subsequently posted to open-access sites, but reliability is established by the prior publication. When the facts in reliable sources differ, then you need to check the sources cited in them and see if later publications noted inaccuracies. In many cases, accepted facts turn out to be wrong. In other cases, even high quality sources contain errors. TFD (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I dont't see any peer-review of the Duane Alexander Miller statitistic; actually we have a single, biased source making this claim (and we dont know exactly from where) while the non-biased sources:
Pew Research Center 60.000
Federal Research Division 45,000
United States Department of State 30,000 to 70,000
Since the Duane Alexander Miller number is so different, is his statistic that need a more strong reliability, not the other way around.

AlessandroDe (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ - Census

Reliable sources for fake news?

I am considering doing a major cleanup of List of fake news websites, removing unreliable sources.

Before I do, I would like opinions on the following:

  • Buzzfeed news[26]?
  • The Christian Post[27]?
  • Neurologica Blog[28]?
  • Science Blogs[29]?
  • (primary source) [30]?
  • The Daily Mail (included for completeness, this one is already decided; see WP:DAILYMAIL.) [31]?
  • Forbes contributor ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own")[32]?
  • Business Insider, reposting material from Facebook[33]?
  • CBS News, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars (Zimdars is a known unreliable source in this area)[34]
  • CNN, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars and Alexios Mantzarlis[35]
  • Any other sources on that page that catch your eye

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of these should be axed, except:
  • Why do you say that Zimdars "is a known unreliable source"? Her inclusion of certain entries is certainly controversial to some, but that doesn't make her unreliable. (Analogous to Beall's list - somewhat controversial but still useful.) She is frequently quoted by reliable secondary sources.
  • Buzzfeed can be usable for certain things if the story is by professional journalists (not the listicle side). A recent discussion at RSN is here. Neutralitytalk 09:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College, has zero qualifications that make her a reliable source on what is and what is is not fake news. In addition, she has repudiated the list that was reposted by multiple sources (which was itself an artifact of the ongoing war between the Republicans and democrats), and her replacement list (with a completely different list of sites and a completely different list categories) has not received any significant coverage by reliable sources (again, because the election is over and we no longer have a major political party spending millions of dollars promoting the list). See WP:ZIMFF.
  • Is buzzfeed reliable as used in this particular article, or should I remove it? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As an assistant professor of communications, Melissa Zimdars seems to be a reliable source for information about fake news, as I and others commented here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Zimdars has never published any academic papers on this topic, does not reveal her methodology for deciding which sites are "fake", has been widely criticized for including right-wing editorial opinions while not including actual fake news site if they are left wing, and has retracted most of the entries that we have enshrined in our page about her list. She is not a reliable source on the question of what is and is not fake news, and neither her list or sites that simply repost her list should be used as sources anywhere on Wikipedia. Our page on List of fake news websites is based upon reliable sources, and thus should be used instead of Zimdars' list in all discussions about fake news. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Business Insider is as far as I can tell fine. I have on occasion used them as a news source, however never for use on Wikipedia. I suggest that those others should at the very least be used with extreme caution, and more adequately banned or only permitted for use if no other source is in any way available. In addition, I propose that it is by far best to keep out of anything opinionated from those, as the opinions may override the facts. trainsandtech (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
All this will need a wider discussion, if this board is to stick to its role in upholding WP principles and not just play out games from the US political scene. I do not see any reason why Zimdars should be treated as anything other than an academic publishing in a non-academic source. I am alarmed by the idea of having an essay specifically knocking her ideas - does it meet BLP? Forbes, CNN and CBS are blindingly obviously not fake news websites. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
We have an "essay specifically knocking her ideas" because the policy page specifically supporting (an old version of) her ideas survived a AfD by being converted to an essay. Compare WP:DTR and WP:TR. The majority of the !votes in that AfD supported the basic concept that you can put anything you want in an essay, including material sourced to someone who has zero qualifications as a reliable source for the material. The consensus was wrong. The same basic argument would allow an essay that presents a batshit insane conspiracy theory right off of Infowars as fact. I would support deleting both WP:ZIMF and WP:ZIMFF or keeping both WP:ZIMF and WP:ZIMFF, but allowing an essay to exist while deleting an essay that disagrees with it is a clear violation of NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • We've had a lot of discussions about Buzzfeed lately, most of which tend to agree that its reputation has improved and that some parts of it can be used (although not the listicles.) See eg. here, or here (which touches on their efforts to change its culture.) That obviously doesn't make it a top-tier source, but it's not nuke-on-sight, and it can be a good source for "Internet drama" specifically (which, nowadays, sometimes does rise to the level of news we have to cover.) Several of the other things you listed are opinion pieces or blogs - those have to be used very carefully, and I'd make it clear who is saying what (granted this is an internal page, but the important thing is to give users a useful sense of "who has objected to this source and why?" so they can use that to resolve their own arguments and anticipate how people will react to a specific source, rather than to produce a hard-and-fast "NEVER USE EVER" list.) The usual procedure for something like that shouldn't be "delete and remove whatever was sourced to them" - instead, first spend some time searching for a better source that says the same thing (or something similar.) If you can't find any, then go back to the original source and decide if it means that that source is unreliable on this topic, being given WP:UNDUE weight, etc. Basically, removing or replacing the sourcing on that list is not a big deal, so use whatever you think is best - I think we can sometimes use eg. Buzzfeed, but I'm certainly not going to object if someone replaces it with a better source. OTOH removing something from the list entirely (when it currently has a so-so source) should only be done if you're confident that it is really definitely not fake news, or if you're confident that no usable sources for that exist at all. EDIT: Also, another thought - since this is an internal list intended as a warning to editors and not something we present in the encyclopedia voice to readers, leaving marginal or biased sources might make sense in that you're indicating eg. "these people object, so expect pushback from people who trust them." I would want to have at least one 'good' source for every entry, but having marginal or biased ones in a list like this could make sense to give the reader an indicator of who objects to a particular source and on what grounds. --Aquillion (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: "Basically, removing or replacing the sourcing on that list is not a big deal", I fully intend to [A] Look for reliable sources to replace the unreliable sources, and [B] remove any unsourced entries that remain after doing that. This will cause howls of outrage and possibly edit warring, so I want some other opinions before I proceed.
Related question: How about sites where the only source for them being fake news is from the source itself ("This is a parody site")? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
If they self-identify as satire or parody then they are not purporting to be real, and therefore are not fake news. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • - Another of the thousands of ad-money chasing websites out there. Not reliable for anything serious.
Buzzfeed news - As previously mentioned, their staff written stuff is getting much better. They also have a focus on subject matter that is of interest to an internet audience, so in this context this one looks ok.
The Christian Post - in this context, probably ok
Neurologica Blog - Blog, so no unless someone can make a strong argument for it.
Science Blogs - same. - primary - so useable for itself.
The Daily Mail - No
Forbes contributor - Depends on who the contributor is. Its effectively self-published (no editorial control once they pass the vetting to become a contributor) so its highly dependant on context and the contributor's expertise in the area.
CBS News, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars - Repost of Zimdar, if we wouldnt use Zimdar, we shouldnt use a repost.
CNN, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars - as above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
While someone's at it, the list should be checked against for entries in Category:Fake news that don't match. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say Neurologica and Science blogs would be fine if we were identifying outlets that promote woo, but as sources for outlets which are fake news? No, not good. That being said, the list itself is actually pretty good. It's mostly the sourcing that needs work. (I agree with OiD's responses, for the record). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like people are offering their opinions on the sources in general rather than for this specific purpose. That's well and good, but it seems worth pointing out that we're dealing with a pretty new concept (as "fake news" anyway). As such there's going to be little-to-no scholarly literature or other top tier sources providing content for a list. What we have is mainstream popular press, some prominent blogs, etc. If we're decided that we're going to have this list, we can't expect sophisticated peer reviewed IMRAD-style studies. That's not an argument to use poor sources, but that the claims about credentials and qualifications and methodologies are pointless. is a Kinja site (a la Gawker, Deadspin, Gizmodo, etc.) and thus not usable for things when we have excellent sources about them, but isn't unacceptable for news about news. Buzzfeed news I put in a similar category, but while their average is probably about Kinja's average, their best is better. Christian Post seems ok for this purpose. Neurologica is written by Steven Novella, who is a pretty good source for discussion of [a particular kind of] mis/disinformation in the news. I'm not familiar with Respectful Insolence (the Science Blogs-hosted site), but would have to default to not using it. The legal document shouldn't be used to verify anything other than the details of the case. Daily Mail is a no, obviously, and Forbes contributors are, by default, a no.

Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College, has zero qualifications that make her a reliable source on what is and what is is not fake news. - This is what led me to comment in the first place. You say this like "My cousin Tommy, who works at McDonald's, has no qualifications to talk about fake news". Based on the sources that exist about fake news, what exactly is a "qualification that makes someone a reliable source on what is and what is [not] fake news"? How are the authors of the other sources qualified in a way that a professor of communications would not be? Her list may be fraught, but it was republished, commented on, extracts published, etc. by many reliable sources. If her original list didn't have editorial oversight, those sources did. I wouldn't cite her list directly, but I'd cite what the other publications decided to republish (even if it requires two sources minimum). As an aside, WP:ZIMFF looks to be totally inappropriate as an attack page. You made an essay about a living person not being a reliable source and then sourced it to WND, The Daily Caller, and Hannity? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this - whatever your feelings about Zimdar, news articles about her list or which are based on it are obviously RS, and I see no valid reason for ruling them out. The objection is itself OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Reliable yes, but neutral, that's a different and much more nuanced question. Which is why resting inclusion for this list on one source whether Zimdar directly or an RS pointing to Zimdar's list is problematic here. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not even sure about the reliable part. Zimdars has never published any academic papers on this topic, does not reveal her methodology for deciding which sites are "fake", has been widely criticized for including right-wing editorial opinions while not including actual fake news site if they are left wing, and has retracted most of the entries that we have enshrined in our page about her list. She is not a reliable source on the question of what is and is not fake news, and neither her list or sites that simply repost her list should be used as sources anywhere on Wikipedia. Our page on List of fake news websites is based upon reliable sources, and thus should be used instead of Zimdars' list in all discussions about fake news. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Zimdars list is not the source here though. CBS and CNN are, and both are RS. You don't get to pick and choose which CNN and which CBS articles are reliable based on your own opinion about where they went for expertise. They are RS, full stop, and your rationale for labelling them unreliable is OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not how RSes work here. CBS/CNN are a RS to say that Zimdar published a list and repeating what that list claims are fake news, but they have not done any of their own analysis of those sites - that's what Zimdar did. Zimday's list is the principal source for why the sites are on the list, so these sources are not "new" sources. It would be akin to trying to claim that a source that primarily repeats what an AP wire story reports is a "new" source separate from the AP one, which is not true (I forget the relevant policy on that but I know we want editors to be aware of misusing this type of sourcing). The only real thing that I can get from the CBS and CNN is identifying Zimdar's list as the first known compilation of fake news websites but not necessarily establishing that as authority on it. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Following up on part of this, WP:ZIMFF is at MfD now. Posting about it here because it's relevant to the above, and this venue/thread seems neutral enough -- I'm just hoping for more participation beyond the nominator and the page creator. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This perhaps is why having a mainspace article like this could be problematic. There definitely are sites that purposely try to misinform readers with fake stories but pose as legit sites (most of those that are .co domains in this list), and I've yet to see anyone say that these aren't fake news sites. But when you start getting into sites like InfoWars, where the operators earnestly believe what they post, or make no attempt to mask their site as a legit news site and clearly are not trying to be satire ala the Onion, then you get very quickly into the subjective aspects of what "fake news" is considered. For example, while I clearly recognize where inclusion of InfoWars is coming from, I would not consider it equivalent to the objective definition of "fake news" because they are not trying to act like a legit news site and pass off fake stories; the operators appear in earnest to believe what they publish, which makes it more a conspiracy theory website rather than "fake news". But because of the current media climate, attaching "fake news" labels to a website is a way to discredit it.
So what seems to be happening here is that as long as you have one RS at minimum to describe a site as "fake news", it's being added, which begs issues such as with Zimdar's list above. I would suggest that the inclusion metric be raised to 3 to 5 independent sources that identify sites as a "fake news" website to avoid one person's opinion being the deciding factor. I would it should be obvious that these sources should be independent of each other too, so if we used Zimdars' list and then used a WaPost list that wsa based on Zimdars' list, that's not independent for this assessment. That helps remove a lot of issues, and also likely avoiding having weak RSes be a singular source for each line. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to object to this discussion, in a sense. I fully support Guy coming here to get feedback about these sources. But to put so many into a single discussion is frankly overwhelming and there's no way that any consensus coming out of here would be sufficiently meaningful to support any assessments on List of fake news websites. Some of these sources are obviously unreliable, while others probably require extended discussion. Plus, I'm quite disturbed that this thread was started yesterday, without any prior discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites and without any notice there, and is already being cited by Guy to justify changes to the article. Not so cool. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a confusion between fakenews and unreliable sources for news. Fakenews sites deliberately and routinely publish stories they know are false - that's why they exist. Opinion pieces in news media are not considered reliable sources for facts because the writers are not experts and there is no fact-checking. TFD (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Further confusing the issue is that during the last US presidential election both parties regularly called what were clearly editorial opinions "fake news" while at the same time there were multiple websites that were posting actual fake news (the Democratic Party is running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza restaurant, Al Queda endorses Donald Trump....).
Another issue is when an unreliable source says something and a reliable source reports that they said it. This leads to stupidity such as multiple editors claiming that an unknown assistant professor at a small college is a reliable source on fake news because her editorial opinions were widely reported by reliable sources, but the president of the united states is not a reliable source on fake news even though his editorial opinions were also widely reported by reliable sources. I say that neither is a reliable source on what is and is not fake news, and neither are those sources that repost their respective opinions on the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion for List of fake news websites

As per the discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites#Criteria for inclusion, Dr. Fleischman and I have a basic disagreement regarding the criteria for inclusion for List of fake news websites My criteria for inclusion are as follows:

To be included, a site must:

  • Claim to be or appear to be a news site, not a blog or an editorial opinion.
  • Be called "fake news" by reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Not be an obvious parody or humor site. Parody sites have their own list.
  • Not be based on citations to otherwise reliable sources that merely report or repost claims from an unreliable source.
  • Receive significant coverage in the sources cited, not just a mention in passing.
  • Not be shut down. The page is a list of fake news websites, not a list of former fake news websites.

...and I am giving serious consideration to the idea posted here that there should be multiple reliable sources.

Dr. Fleischman's criteria for inclusion is as as follows:

  • Be called "fake news" by at least one third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

I would welcome comments showing a consensus that we should have one or the other criteria for inclusion.

In addition, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake", shortly after I started removing entries from List of fake news websites that were based upon unreliable sources, Dr. Fleischman nominated an essay that I created for deletion. In that discussion, he appears to take the position that BLP protection extends to web sites containing editorial opinions. I would once again welcome comments at the MfD from those in the community who are familiar with our RS and BLP policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 6:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)\

  • I would add for your first bullet that the site is aimed to deceive with the authors knowing full well they are publishing falsehoods. This distinguishes fake news sites from things like conspiracy theory sites (eg the realm of Infowars) which are still bad sources but they're not purposely trying to trick their audience. Also, I would set a minimum # of RSes that call the site a fake news one, as to avoid a singular opinion from being a dominate factor.
  • Also, I would not necessarily eliminate default fake news sites, but only if they have an existing article or a reasonable target that we can point a reader to if they want to learn more. Former fake news sites that have vanishsed and that we have no real coverage of them, then yes that line is just wasting space. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Neurologica Blog has several things that seem to make it qualifiable as a reliable source. It's run by Steven Novella, who is a degreed authority in neurology as well as a well published skeptic. The guideline states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.". In Novella's case, his work in scientific skepticism has been published by the James Randi Educational Foundation, the New Haven Advocate newspaper, and he is also an editor of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, a peer reviewed journal. He is a Fellow at Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and at James Randi Educational Foundation. To put it another way, yes Neurologica Blog is a "blog", but its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is moot now. Dr. Fleischman reverted all of my work making sure that the sources were all reliable (including putting a ref to The Daily Mail back in), and I am abandoning all further attempts to improve the article rather than edit war. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Sun RfC

In light of the abolition of the Daily Mail as a reputable source here on Wikipedia, I thought it would be appropriate to bring up another similarly but arguably more so distrusted source. That is UK-based publication known as The Sun. According to the statistics of the studies mentioned on this news article, The Sun seems notably questionable. Furthermore, the content on their website seems more than slightly odd, opinionated and gossip-like, as does the Daily Mail in my opinion. Therefore, should this tabloid be considered an acceptable source, or should action be taken? I have not been able to come across any response to this issue here on Wikipedia so far. trainsandtech (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not usually reliable, but may occasionally be OK, e.g. an interview with a celebrity, or a film review. Definitely not reliable for science, and for news events there will virtually always be a better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That may fit as a partial ban. Possibly, it could be that the sun could be used only if there is absolutely no alternative. trainsandtech (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Daily Mail RFC was intended to create a precedent where we have an RFC of that for every single source. In fact, part of the reason we had it was because the Daily Mail was borderline - there are clearly many less reliable sources than the Daily Mail (just glancing up this page shows many of them being discussed and quickly dismissed.) The reason we needed a giant RFC for the Daily Mail was because it was close enough of a call that people would keep using it and then constantly disagree over whether it could be allowed or not, which (after large amounts of back-and-forth) necessitated resolving the question once and for all. Generally speaking, we don't go for such sweeping declarations - reliability is contextual and decided on a case-by-case basis. Something like the DM RFC is a nuclear option for when it's clear individual discussions over the source keep breaking down. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail ban did not make any real sense, since there are plenty of less reliable sources that meet reliable sources standards. I think that if we want to keep out middle market and down market news media, that we should have a policy that does that rather than arbitrarily single out papers. Existing policy ("Good research" already says, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." And "Balancing aspects" says, "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." So if a story is only covered in The Sun, it normally should not be mentioned and if it has wide media coverage, then better publications should be used. Another reason good editors would not normally use The Sun and similar publications is that they usually do not provide much detail. TFD (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The status of Fox News

Given the current issue with Fox News and their promotion of conspiracy theories, I think this needs to be examined. Are they unreliable? Morty C-137 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Retracting a story, with editorial apologies and promises of future vigilance, seems to me could equally well count as a point in favor of Fox News, as much as a point against them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem is (a) they took 6 days, (b) many of their personalities (such as Hannity) are STILL pretending the story is real. And they tried to bury the retraction after hammering the story for six days.

What’s notable in that is how unapologetic the language of the retraction is—both considering the length of time the story was allowed to remain on Fox’s site, and even more especially because of the speed and the volume at which it was amplified. That’s in one way unsurprising: The story that was framed as evidence of the mainstream media’s collusion had become, in fact, evidence of the mainstream media’s restraint. The story whose subtext was the mainstream media’s inherent untrustworthiness had proven its real subtext to be the opposite.

And it took days to obtain even that terse retraction.

On Friday, a day after it first published the comments suggesting Rich’s connection to WikiLeaks—from Rod Wheeler, the former detective who had been hired by the family to investigate his death—the Fox affiliate clarified its story, writing, “What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.”

The story on Fox remained. It retained its chorus-like status. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox properly asserts sources - right now, asserting that "Fox News is unreliable per se" seems quite less likely to pass than was the bare passage of the Daily Mail RS RfC. Collect (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Fox News takes a long time to retract a source. CNN outraged. To me this is less than compelling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hannity is not Fox News just like Buzzfeed listicles are not Buzzfeed News. Hannity should not be used as a source for anything other than Hannity. Fox News is fine. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Was Hannity used as a source, or am I missing something? This seems to be an archive link to the original story, and it does not mention Hannity. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As the editnotice on this page makes clear, you're not going to get a binary answer to a question like "Is Fox News a reliable source?" The answer will vary depending on the claims in question, the article subject (with higher standards for biographical material about living or recently deceased people), and so on. That said, the original poster brings up the topic of the murder of Seth Rich. In this case, Fox News promoted a partisan conspiracy theory as if it had some basis in reality; their claims were then echoed through other right-wing partisan media, causing great distress to the family of a murder victim. Fox News' "scoop" then fell apart under the most minimal independent scrutiny, indicating that the network was guilty of something in between irresponsible reporting and outright journalistic fraud. In the meantime, editors irresponsibly rushed the material in question into our Wikipedia article, compounding the real-life harm to the family caused by Fox News and other partisan media.

    The lesson here is that if Fox News trumpets a surprising "scoop" that is not corroborated by independent, reliable, non-partisan, credible sources, then it should not be considered "reliable enough" for inclusion until appropriately corroborated. Even more so in cases that fall under WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. At this point, there is really no excuse for making this kind of error of judgement a second time, and I would expect administrative responses to reflect that. MastCell Talk 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would this matter at all, that Fox News' misbehavior is being covered in a larger pattern? Morty C-137 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting but again I don't think Fox's opinion reporting should affect our treatment of their news division. MSNBC (for example) is a proper news outlet despite the conspiratorial speculation of some of their opinion shows. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The NY Times' front page story of a "criminal investigation" into Hillary Clinton's email server in 2015 is IMHO a more egregious example. (Their apology: link.) This is not unique to Fox and our response should not be to impose conditions specific to Fox. Corroboration from independent sources is always prudent. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I am in agreement that there's nothing wrong with Fox News that we need to take action ala Daily Mail. They do follow the same editorial practices (albeit maybe slower) that we expect from an RS. But like with any other RS including the BBC or NYTimes, a singular article could be a problem but our policies and IAR allow for case-by-case evaluation if there's something questionable. Also, editors should keep in mind that opinion statements from RSes are not necessarily reliable, they're only reliable for their opinions. Unfortunately, Fox News as well as many other sources tend to forget to mark opinion pieces with the "op-ed" type language so it might require editors to come to agreement if a news piece is being presented objectively or as opinion and treat the RS nature from that. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with those that say we take it report by report in context. Fox News is no worse than The Huffington Post writers that quote conspiracy theorists while peddling the old tripe that the CIA was complicit in drug-trafficking (e.g. [36], [37], [38]) or leaving open the possibility that a conspiracy was responsible for the death of JFK (e.g. [39], [40]). Don't get me started on the amount of space they've given to reports about the newest conspiracy book or documentary. -Location (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC) (Edited: Oh, I forgot to note some of the HuffPost's references to the October Surprise conspiracy theory: [41], [42], [43]. -Location (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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