Open main menu

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269

Contents

RfC - CoinDesk as a sourceEdit

Should CoinDesk be removed as a source from all articles on Wikipedia? --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey (CoinDesk)Edit

Previous Discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk

RSP Entry: CoinDesk RSP Entry

Please note: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies

There is currently no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be considered a [[questionable source. Therefore I do not support the blanket removal of CoinDesk references especially in cases where it leaves statements unsourced and articles incomplete (including several criticisms). Instead, editors should refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

An experienced editor is removing all CoinDesk references from cryptocurrency related articles on Wikipedia. My question is simply whether there should there be a blanket removal of all CoinDesk references from Wikipedia, even in cases where it is not used to establish notability, irrespective of context? Here is a small sample of 10 affected articles, in no particular order (there are too many to sort through):

So the question is,

  • Yes all references to CoinDesk should be removed from Wikipedia irrespective of context
  • No do not remove all references to CoinDesk per previous RfC, and instead use the context to determine whether to use the reference or not (e.g. do not use CoinDesk sources to establish notability).

Note: This is not an RfC for individual article cleanup. I am sure we can all agree that many of the cryptocurrency related articles can be improved. --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove it - speaking as the editor in question, here's what my thinking was:
  • In general: cryptocurrency/blockchain articles are magnets for spam and advocacy. And crypto news sites are bad sources, per the previous discussion on this topic - they appear to be specialist press, but function as advocacy. You will see every possible thing being spun as good news for cryptos. We don't need crypto sites - there's plenty of mainstream coverage and peer-reviewed academic coverage to establish notability. Using crypto sites as sources in your article is a bad sign at AFD, and using mainstream RSes and peer-reviewed academic RSes is a good sign at AFD - so the observed working consensus of Wikipedia editors in practice is strongly in this direction.
  • In particular: Coindesk has a terrible habit of running articles on things that don't exist yet, barely-reskinned press releases and so on. There are plenty of refs that are entirely factual content! But you can say the same about blogs, wikis and other sources that aren't trustworthy in any practical sense. And this is even though Coindesk has an editor, I know a pile of the journalists and they're honestly trying to do a good job, etc. Quite a lot of the Coindesk refs I removed were to puffed-up nonsense articles, or in support of blatantly promotional article content. So the argument that editors will check the context doesn't work in practice - using the Coindesk articles that happen to be properly-made news coverage only encourages the use of their bad stuff, on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is the most frequent AFD argument from crypto spammers.
  • I urge those thinking about this to reread WP:GS/Crypto. Just think what sort of editing would cause that harsh a community sanction to be put into place. Those conditions haven't changed. Letting just a waffer-thin crypto site in the door will invite the spammers back.
  • I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here - I make some money as a crypto journalist, often publishing in these very sites. I know my stuff is good and my editors are good! But I also know there's excellent reason it's not good for Wikipedia - when we have mainstream sources. If some subject or fact isn't notable enough to make it into mainstream or peer-reviewed sources, perhaps it's not notable enough for Wikipedia.
  • For a recent example that did make the crypto press, check this out. (I spoke to them with my Wikipedia editor hat on for once, not my crypto journalist hat.) That's about spammy interests trying to weasel their stuff into just one page. Repeat for a large swathe of the crypto articles on Wikipedia, 'cos that sort of thing is entirely usual. Mainstream-only is good in practice. (cc Retimuko and Ladislav Mecir, who are also mentioned in that piece.)
  • And, really - you think crypto sites should be used for BLPs? We have super-stringent BLP rules also for excellent reasons. I can't see how a crypto site would ever be acceptable as a source for a BLP, except maybe as an accepted subject-published link or similar - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I'm skeptical of your claim "I must note I'm arguably speaking against my own interest here", considering that you published Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, a book that is highly critical of cryptocurrencies. How would your !vote to remove all references to CoinDesk go against your own interests? Since you "make some money as a crypto journalist", wouldn't removing all references to CoinDesk effectively eliminate your biggest competitor and/or adversary from being mentioned on Wikipedia? — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean that my own work in the ones I write for (which include Coindesk) wouldn't be citable. If you think you have a substantiable claim of COI on my part, you know where WP:COIN is, else I'll file that with all the other unsubstantiated claims that not being an advocate means I should stop editing in the area - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes more sense alongside the fact that you have contributed to CoinDesk. Ironically, the fact that CoinDesk published your opinion piece "2017: The ‘Butt’ of Bitcoin’s Joke" makes them less biased than I had previously assumed. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable source - beyond the issues that David Gerrard lays out above, crypto news sites also have had issues with content being gneerated for pay but not noted as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    • to be fair, Coindesk has never been credibly accused of pay-for-play, and there's no good reason to think they'd do that. However, their editorial line has long been basically boosterism for cryptos (IMO) - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      That is fair. However, beyond that for all the reasons you've mentioned, which I didn't bother to repeat since you'd laid them out in depth, I continue to believe it is an unreliable source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Keep (do not remove all references to CoinDesk - here's my thinking and take on the matter:
  • The previous RfC did a good job of getting consensus on how to treat CoinDesk articles. It clearly stated that CoinDesk shouldn't be used to establish notability but otherwise isn't barred from being used as a source. Why the sudden change in this policy by one editor deciding unilaterally that they no longer wish to adhere to this consensus?
  • Yes, we all know the usual criticisms of crypto press. That's already debated and known to editors. If there are individual instances to consider incorrect usage of CoinDesk, e.g. to establish notability, by all means they should be deleted. But as long as it isn't the policy, I don't support a blanket removal of all the material from literally hundreds of articles affected.
  • A lot of the material that's been removed is actually criticism of the projects. The bias is easy to understand - a lot of the overly promotional puffery has been removed by diligent editors already. This means removing all the CoinDesk references has made the problem of crypto-puffery much worse.
  • Several instances of purely encyclopedic content was removed for using CoinDesk as a purely descriptive secondary source (e.g. discussion on popular standards). This hurts the quality of the articles from an encyclopedic perspective.
  • This blanket removal of CoinDesk references already goes against the general consensus previously reached. There are literally hundreds (probably thousands?) of edits to go through, and I don't think it's feasible to go through them all to determine if the removal was justified. In many cases I've reviewed, I think the removal was unjustified, and in several other cases, it was totally justified. It's very hard to review now after these edits.
  • In conclusion, yes, there is a problem with crypto puff material entering the articles, but the solution isn't to ban crypto press. Crypto press both has the puffiest pieces and the most critical pieces on crypto projects. As editors, we want to see a balanced article, but that balance gets lost of we cannot cite the criticisms. One editor shouldn't decide to remove criticism and encyclopedic content especially going against previous consensus

I am of course happy to comply with a consensus view that CoinDesk should never be used as a reference on Wikipedia, if that's what comes out of this RfC. In that case, we should edit the RSP entry to reflect this consensus. Also, a lot of articles now have material that are unreferenced. There is a good amount of work to be done to go through these and remove the unsourced material or find other sources. --Molochmeditates (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as a source per Molochmeditates. CoinDesk's role in promoting the use of cryptocurrencies is no different from PinkNews's role in promoting acceptance of LGBT communities worldwide. Recognise their bias, and use discretion when citing the source; but do not systemically reject an entire topic area from Wikipedia just because it is in some way problematic or difficult to write about. feminist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of them should be removed. But it should be done more carefully. A lot of them can be replaced by mainstream sources. Examples:
Andreessen Horowitz - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andreessen_Horowitz&type=revision&diff=899210046&oldid=897849761
Wall Street Journal "blog" about the same thing.
Initial coin offering - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Initial_coin_offering&type=revision&diff=899236284&oldid=878360173
"The SEC ruled that celebrity ICO endorsements must disclose the amount of any compensation paid for the endorsement." Covered by Reuters.
BitLicense - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitLicense&diff=prev&oldid=899205899
"In July 2016, San Francisco-based Ripple was awarded the second BitLicense." Covered by Reuters.
There should be zero coin news references used in an article if possible. Like do you really need to use CoinDesk to write a good article about blockchain?
So if it's an important detail, look for a mainstream source. If it's only on a coin news site you should explain why it's needed on the talk page or edit summary. Blumpf (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all references from Coindesk and other cryptopropaganda I'd thought that this was already a settled matter. There are reliable references to cryptomatters, e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Financial Times, BBC, CBC and sometimes in Fortune and some of the cable news networks. There's no reason not to just use these sources. The cryptopropaganda network is all shills all the time as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not delete all references. There is not enough evidence to indict CoinDesk as a source that publishes false or fabricated information. While CoinDesk is a biased and non-independent source due to the cryptocurrency holdings of its parent company (Digital Currency Group), I don't consider the content in CoinDesk to be sponsored content, and I don't think a removal of "all references" to CoinDesk is justified. In my opinion, a source only crosses the line when it publishes calls to action that support its interests. CoinDesk's articles do not contain that type of promotional language. CoinDesk is much closer to TorrentFreak (RSP entry), which is another specialist publication that assumes the role of an advocacy organization, than The Points Guy's sponsored content (RSP entry), which contains actual sales pitches. However, CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability (per existing consensus), and editors should consider whether content from CoinDesk constitutes undue weight before including it into an article. — Newslinger talk 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    To "delete all references" to a source "irrespective of context" is a very serious action that is only taken when a source is listed on the spam blacklist. The "Yes" position in this RfC goes further than deprecation, because deprecation respects WP:CONTEXTMATTERS while the "Yes" position here does not. If CoinDesk is not eligible for the spam blacklist, then there is no valid reason to "delete all references" to it "irrespective of context". — Newslinger talk 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove all, but try to replace with mainstream sources when at all possible, per Blumpf and others. The FRS/Legobot sent me. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove all. Mainstream sources are fine. Coindesk is biased, and most editors don't have context to identify the cases where they might be able to be a neutral source. – SJ + 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - Remove all, unreliable is unreliable, context doesn't magically make dishonest reporting honest. They have form. Bacondrum (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (CoinDesk)Edit

I think we need to be cautious here. Crypto/blockchain is a rather large field, but awash with people fighting over virtual dollars so sources are going to be iffy. But in other fields - for example, video games, we also know there is a lot of specialized media and a LOT of "blogs" trying to be big news sites that we at the VG project reject. That said, reviewing lists of crypto news site lists, a lot are owned by companies directly involved in the crypto game so yes, COI/self-promotion has to be a factor here. Coinbank seems to fall into that but its also the first major site after you get past CNBC and Forbes (which includes their contributors) in this list (which of course may also be suspect). I think we need some strong guidance to white/black-list sites and make it clear that sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concerns. --Masem (t) 23:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"sites that are knownly run by crypto backers should be considered generally a non-RS and certainly not independent for notability concern" - but that's literally all the crypto news sites, though. Every single one. Is there an exception you had in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, I have not had any good chance to review them in any depth, their connections, and how others see those sources. For example, if we have non-crypto-based RSes routinely quoting facts from a crypto source, even if that source is not truly independent, that still suggests that that source would be seen as authorative. All the concerns related to WP:NORG obviously should be applied to any crypto-related article, but it still doesn't mean throwing the entire work out if others see part of it as reliable. But I have spent literally only like 10 minutes looking into this, nothing I would consider suitable to say such exist.
I do worry that this rush of mass removals without a clear consensus is into WP:FAIT territory, even though I suspect 95% of them removals would be proper, at the end of the day. --Masem (t) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I think your point about RS quoting something like CoinDesk is a fair point and I would hope that David Gerrard has stopped removing CoinDesk as a reference while this RfC is being conducted. However, because Crypto/blockchain is a substantial field we have non-industry sources covering notable organizations/developments regularly. We can rely on them without having to figure "Is CoinDesk acting as a booster of the industry here or is it reporting news of significance?" Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

No, do not remove all references to CoinDesk. As always, reliability is determined in context. Per Obsidi, "They have an editorial staff and an editorial policy. They do issue corrections". Benjamin (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I see one very rarely indeed. A recent worked example of Coindesk being a sloppy and misleading source: [1] It's particularly egregious because literally nothing they claim is new - including the precise technical claim, which was detailed in InfoQ (which is a specialist RS) two years ago and its application to blockchains the same year (though that's a primary source, not an RS, it's the counterexample that Coindesk has repeated a marketing lie unexamined). Will Coindesk correct it? Still waiting ... Coindesk has a long history of repeating any press release nonsense that sounds like good news for blockchain. This means that a Coindesk reference cannot be safely used unless the editor has separately verified that this time they're not just repeating boosterism - at which point you're doing original research and should either find a RS or just not do that - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source. — Newslinger talk 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Quadrant MagazineEdit

GENERALLY UNRELIABLE
While there was minor support for options 2 and 4, there was clear consensus in favour of option 3 ("Generally unreliable for factual reporting"). Thus, Quadrant Magazine is considered generally unreliable for factual reporting by this community. As such, any use of it should be avoided wherever possible. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've seen Quadrant Magazine listed as a source a few times recently and I'm dubious on its use. Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Quadrant Magazine?

  1. Generally reliable for factual reporting
  2. Unclear or additional considerations apply
  3. Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  4. Publishes false or fabricated information

Bacondrum (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It is not a news source, I don't think the classifications are how it should be viewed. The publication has produced content that might be used with attribution to its author, sort of option 2, but after a certain period was shown to be unreliable in editorial selection and elementary checks (a Sokal-like article that was published, literally fabricated information). cygnis insignis 03:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Fabricated information is a serious concern. Do you have links to examples of these articles? — Newslinger talk 23:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The editor is named in an outline of the hoax this news item [in a Murdoch organ, if that matters, I can provide better] cygnis insignis 06:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed my position, although I note that the article still describes Quadrant as a "respected right-wing journal" despite the incident. For other interested editors, a more detailed description of the incident is at Keith Windschuttle § Hoax, but the incident is not yet mentioned in the Quadrant (magazine) article. If there are any other incidents that would establish a pattern of poor editorial controls, please share them. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Quadrant publishes mostly opinions, which makes it a biased or opinionated source, and all of its statements should be properly attributed. The source consists of both online and magazine editions; in the past two decades, the magazine has released 10 issues per year. Quadrant has 10 listed authors on its editorial team, but most of its online content is submitted by non-staff contributors. On average, the online edition publishes 1–3 articles per day; the low volume allows the site to publish higher-quality content than Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry) and HuffPost contributors (RSP entry). Quadrant isn't a good source for facts; outlets that focus on factual reporting are better. — Newslinger talk 23:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Option 2 for articles written by staff, option 3 for articles written by non-staff contributors. The incident described in Keith Windschuttle § Hoax casts doubt on the quality of Quadrant's fact-checking process for contributed articles and reveals that the magazine does not properly verify the identity and credentials of its non-staff contributors. The editor-in-chief promised to be more careful in the future, but did not offer details on how the publication would do so. Contributed articles should be treated as self-published sources, with exceptions for established subject-matter experts. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. It is an opinion magazine, and might be quoted for notable opinions properly attributed to a notable contributor. It's articles are not a useful source for factual claims, and it's not prominent enough to make the opinions automatically notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Worth noting that even the "hoax" contained mostly true information, and that Windschuttle seems unhappy about the fact that he was tricked into accepting it. Looking at their website, I see opinionated statements, which leads me to be cautious with them for facts, but also no examples of anything clearly false. In general, their content ought to be treated like opinion pieces, without prejudice against deciding, on a case by case basis and using WP:CONTEXTMATTERS as a guide, that some pieces may be factual.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3, maybe Option 4. If this source were placed into Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I'm inclined to think it should be red. It has an entire section (w/ link in top header), Doomed Planet, dedicated to climate denialism. Therefore, the organization as a whole seems to lack interest in scientific credibility, which I suspect pervades their entire publication. II | (t - c) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Rigorous application of WP:NOTNEWS and avoid use of media sources wherever possible. That said, media sources that are clearly opinion, are even more suspect and should be avoided except when a columnist in them has an independently notable opinion. Then, and only then, it could be used for citing that opinion, as an opinion, with the normal WP:DUE concerns that surround individual opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Quadrant publishes opinion, typically from little-known writers these days, and is not a RS for anything except the authors' views. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Opinion-focused source with no indication of fact-checking and no reputation to speak of. Regarding R2's objection, they are not entirely wrong, and it's true that the recent flood of broad WP:RFCs for sources is undesirable; however, these RFCs are still useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare), I don't think any outcome should be taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. --Aquillion (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Every article in their current edition seems to be almost entirely ideologically-propelled opinion. I read one in its entirety, plus provided sources, by Mark Durie, regarding the New Zealand killer of 51 people at two mosques. The verifiable few facts I found were cherry picked from context. It's better than the Daily Mail, but what isn't? Activist (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Pretty clearly partisan and not concerned with reportorial objectivity. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Clearly much more focused on making political arguments that providing an accurate description of events. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 - Clearly not primarily interested in the truth. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.ghEdit

NO CONSENSUS
After reviewing this discussion, participation was simply too low in order to adequately garner consensus. The last comment in this discussion was made June 16th (26 days ago) and as such this discussion can reasonably be called dead. With this in mind, I unfortunately see this as a no consensus situation. No objection to filing of new attempt (if filed, hopefully participation will be high enough to elicit some consensus one way or another). --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of the following best describes the Daily Graphic (Ghana) and its website, graphic.com.gh? signed, Rosguill talk 05:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, may include gossip or other trivial tabloid content presented as factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, primarily publishes gossip, or does not guarantee the accuracy of information that it publishes as factual reporting
This is a difficult one. It is definitely a news site, and people rely on it for up to date and accurate news. According to Course Hero and Boamah, Mavis, Impact of online newsportals on the patronage of newspapers in Ghana, GRIN Verlag (2018), p. 7, ISBN 9783668719965:
As the political agenda of Gold Coast journalism radicalized, newspapers began reaching out beyond the circle of elites, appealing to rural leaders and the urban poor with a more accessible language and fiery oppositional outcry. In 1948, political activist Kwame Nkrumah started The Accra Evening News, a publication stating the views of the Convention People's Party (CPP). Largely written by party officials, this inflammatory newspaper incessantly repeated the popular demand for "Self-government Now!" while launching angry attacks against the colonial government. In contrast, the London Daily Mirror Group, headed by British newspaper magnate Cecil King, established The Daily Graphic in 1950. The Graphic sought to maintain a policy of political neutrality, emphasizing objective reporting by local African reporters. With its Western origin, The Graphic sought to position itself as the most professional newspaper in the Gold Coast at the time.

However, this master thesis by Dzineku, Theorose Elikplim (PRINT MEDIA REPORTAGE OF THE ALAVANYO NKONYA CONFLICT:A CASE STUDY OF DAILY GRAPHIC AND GHANAIAN TIMES NEWSPAPERS.[in] Academia) provides a thorough criticism from page 32. I'm nudging towards Option 1 but would be interested to read what the community thinks.Tamsier (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Objection to RfC. This RfC violates our verifiability policy. It amounts to little more than a popularity contest and is inconsistent with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The TDM RfC was premised on the fact that TDM had already been a perennial source here based on many specific test cases. It is inappropriate for us to go through obscure sources that have only been glancingly addressed here and to decide whether they satisfy the reliability bar absolutely or generally. RSN is the place for individual test cases, and once enough of them have arisen then a case can be made to add a media outlet to WP:RSP. R2 (bleep) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ahrtoodeetoo, the purpose of my raising this RfC is to get a baseline assessment of reliability so that editors engaged in page reviewing (or other topic-hopping maintenance tasks) who are unfamiliar with a given region or topic (in this case Ghana) can more reliably make decisions that comply with community consensus. I agree that the result of this discussion should not be posted to RSP; I intend to summarize the results of this discussion at WP:NPPSG, which is supposed to centralize information from RSN that potentially reflects a weaker consensus than RSP. In hindsight, this makes option 4 an arguably inappropriate inclusion in the survey, although given the responses so far this is a non-issue. Moreover, looking at the comments in the discussion so far, this is hardly a popularity contest: so far we have two well-thought-out comments drawing on high quality sources. I'm open to criticisms that this should be handled through a different process (a differently worded RfC prompt is likely in order), but these sorts of discussions are a net positive to the project and will particularly help us cover subjects that are systemic-bias blind spots. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is that context really does matter per WP:RS, and you can't assess context without discussing specific article content. Moreover, the community has to look at a lot of article content, not just one or two examples, or even worse none, before drawing any conclusions about an outlet's general reliability. That's the very premise behind RSP. Those are outlets that have come up again and again. Not never. R2 (bleep) 20:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    This isn't for RSP. My goal here is to establish a guide that allows editors to distinguish reputable sources from tabloids and self-published outlets at a glance, as well as to identify particularly relevant conflicts of interest for a given publication. The purpose of this is not to head off discussion about sources, it's to provide a starting point. Of course context matters, but there are also aspects of a publication that remain true in every (or almost every context) and that are worth discussing and recording. signed, Rosguill talk 20:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ahrtoodeetoo, are you planning to insert this into more sections on this noticeboard? It doesn't seem directly related. cygnis insignis 09:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys, unless/until there's consensus that they're consistent with WP:RS. R2 (bleep) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahrtoodeetoo I move this query from the previous section: TDM is what, The Daily Mail? cygnis insignis 18:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Endorse RfC. See Special:Diff/901760684. — Newslinger talk 22:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ahrtoodeetoo If you "plan to keep objecting to these sorts of surveys" on principle, I suggest you open an RfC elsewhere on the merits of these kinds of discussions. Considering your objections are not very much related to the actual sources being discussed, to be posting the same message over and over here would come across as obstructionist. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing obstructionist about it. I have nothing against discussing the reliability of specific Daily Graphic sources in context. My objection is made in good faith and is as applicable to this noticeboard request as to other similar requests. R2 (bleep) 22:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment An excerpt from The Press and Political Culture in Ghana by Jennifer Hasty, published by Indiana University Press in 2005 (page 47): "Under President J. J. Rawlings, the premier state newspaper, the Daily Graphic, articulated and reinforced a specific logic of state hegemony: political legitimacy based on state accumulation, populist morality, and benevolent patronage. Participation in the hegemonic project of the state distinguishes the Daily Graphic as a strategic node in the larger "ideological state apparatus" (Althusser 1971) designed to construct and reinforce an official national imaginary...The style of journalism practiced at Graphic throughout the 1990s...was designed to explain government policies and illustrate the positive impact of development projects on grateful communities, generally ignoring political controversies and popular criticisms." I'd lean for option 1, but option 2 might be in order with the consideration of the fact that its reporting of government business might be non-neutral. It is a state-run newspaper, after all. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 with two caveats, after having spent far too much time reviewing the sources.
First caveat, it is a partisan source with respect to the government (note that partisan sources can still be categorized as “generally reliable” at WP:RSP). Exactly how partisan is unclear to me, and evaluating that probably requires editors who are much more familiar with Ghana. The paper nominally has editorial independence and there appears to be little direct interference, but the board members are government-appointed and there are a number of additional issues, e.g. journalists tend to act favorably to the government from their own initiative.
Quotes
Nunoo 2016, on independence and journalistic standards:[1]
  • “Though a state-owned newspaper, the Daily Graphic still operates as an independent newspaper. Appointment of the Board Chairman and the Board Members is however provided for in the Constitution of Ghana and it is done by the National Media Commission in conjunction with the Civil Services Secretariat.”
  • “Both news gatherers and editors highly value the ability of the lead news to influence social change by holding the government accountable to its citizens”
Lewil 2017:[2]
  • “Ideologically, the editorial stance of the Daily Graphic...[is] much more accommodating and supportive of government policies.”
Shardow 2016, on the situation in practice:[3]
  • “journalists working in public media are prevented from exercising their watchdog role on top functionaries of the government.”
  • [referring to a group of newspapers including the Daily Graphic] “content analysis confirmed that the ownership structures of the media affected the media.”
  • “[These newspapers] fell short of meeting the objectivity criterion set up by this work, namely: the absence of decided views, expression or strong feelings; absence of personal or organizational interest and presenting all sides of an argument fairly. (emphasis in original)
  • “In the words of a journalist from Ghanaian Times [another state-owned newspaper]: 'depending on which government is in power, journalists who appear not to side with the government will not be active in editorial meetings or will not partake in (editorial) meetings at all...we report mostly in favor of the ruling government, either NDC or NPP...Because the presidency sponsors you, you are forced to speak for them without criticism.' The above assertion lends credence to Hasty’s observation...[that Daily Graphic journalists] were often 'under pressure to give favorable publicity to the state; but that pressure is exercised through a set of cultural understandings in such a way that journalists do not recognize themselves as mere puppets of propaganda'.”
Also a quote on the state of the media in general:
  • "[Ghana's current constitution] broke the “culture of silence” to some appreciable extent within the public sphere. Some shortfalls were identified and these were: the media lacks right to information, some archaic laws still exist in the statute books and huge court fines cripple media outlets."[4]

References

  1. ^ Nunoo, Isaac (2016). "Determinants of News Selection in the Ghanaian Print Media: A Study of the Daily Graphic" (PDF). Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 6 (3): 99–120.
  2. ^ Diedong, Africanus Lewil (22 October 2017). Responsible Journalism and Quest for Professional Standards in Ghana. Woeli Publishing Services. ISBN 978-9988-2-3604-5.
  3. ^ Shardow, Mohammed; Asare, Bossman (2016). "Media Ownership and Independence: Implications for Democratic Governance in the Fourth Republic of Ghana" (PDF). 9 (9): 179–198.
  4. ^ Nyarko, Jacob; Mensah, Eric Opoku; Owusu-Amoh, Stephen Kwame; Wade, Alex (2018). "Achieving media independence through legal and regulatory measures: A formality or reality?". Cogent Arts & Humanities. 5 (1). doi:10.1080/23311983.2018.1455625. ISSN 2331-1983.
I also observe that from their political news page they at least meet the minimum standard of reporting some criticism of the current ruling party (NPP) and some of the views of the opposition party (NDC), e.g. [2] [3]. I also checked the archives from 2014 (when the NDC was in power) and the situation was the same. From my own evaluation there are some signs that could indicate bias, but I can't say for sure, and most of it is relatively subtle. Certainly it doesn't look like it would be any worse than certain US news sources that we consider RS.
The second caveat is that historically, the paper’s degree of independence depended heavily on who was in power and the structure of the government at the time. During some periods, it appears to have been essentially propaganda. I would tentatively suggest 2006 as the year when it achieved its current level of reliability. First, I would note that Ghana's score on the Press Freedom Index is quite high, better than the United States (!), and that the score has been roughly constant since that year. Additionally, while the current protections for journalism have been in place since 1993, the pre-2006 press freedom score was much worse and the academic analysis of the Daily Graphic seems to reflect that. Before 1993, the situation changed regularly but it seems like usually the problems were much more severe.
Quotes
Hasty 2005:[1]
  • "Graphic journalists are reluctant to recognize their participation in the hegemonic project of the state. Rather, state journalists earnestly profess their commitments to the public as well as the state, identifying themselves as both 'watchdogs in the public interest' and responsible spokespersons of the benevolent state. [They focus] on their own professional intentions and their freedom from outright state censorship..."
  • "In reality, of course, the state media occupies a structurally partisan position..."
  • "throughout the 1990s the content of both Graphic and Times was dominated by the development rhetoric of government officials while editorials encouraged unity, loyalty, and popular initiative in the national quest for development."
Hasty 2006:[2]
  • “Journalists in Ghana recognize a distinctive style in the discursive practices that position state journalists and compel them to produce a certain redundant narrative of national news.”
  • “the Daily Graphic has [become] the premiere instrument of state news”
  • “No matter the story, Graphic journalists routinely skipped over the other basic elements of the story in order to open with what they term the ‘who-lead’, a rhetorical quote by the most senior official at the event.”
And for the situation pre-1993:
  • "Each time a new faction assumes power the editorial staff of the state newspapers is shuffled or replaced, and the editorial positions of the papers are transformed, sometimes overnight, to reflect the personal and ideological commitments of the new government"[1] (additional examples[3][4])
  • "for years [the Daily Graphic] thought more of how to blindly support state power rather than how to encourage democratic participation..."[5]

References

  1. ^ a b Jennifer Hasty (28 April 2005). The Press and Political Culture in Ghana. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-11135-8.
  2. ^ Hasty, Jennifer (2006). "Performing power, composing culture". Ethnography. 7 (1): 69–98. doi:10.1177/1466138106064591. ISSN 1466-1381.
  3. ^ Hachten, William A. (2016). "Ghana's Press under the N.R.C.: An Authoritarian Model for Africa". Journalism Quarterly. 52 (3): 458–464. doi:10.1177/107769907505200308. ISSN 0022-5533. The Daily Graphic and Ghanaian Times were dutifully supporting the Busia civilian government one day, and then after the 1972 coup, quickly denounced Busia and shifted their allegiance...
  4. ^ Kwame Boafo, S.T. (2016). "Ghana's Press Under the Pndc: Performance Under Confinement". Gazette (Leiden, Netherlands). 35 (2): 73–82. doi:10.1177/001654928503500201. ISSN 0016-5492. within a few days after [the 1982 coup]...The editors of the nation’s leading newspaper, Daily Graphic, and its sister weekly, The Mirror, were dismissed and three key members of the editorial staff of the Graphic Corporation (publishers of the two newspapers)...were ordered to proceed on 'indefinite leave'.
  5. ^ Africanus Diedong (2008). "Establishing Journalistic Standards in the Ghanaian Press" (PDF). Retrieved 14 June 2019.
The sources and quotes from other editors above should also fit into this analysis, as determined by when those sources were published. Sunrise (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

RfC: The American ConservativeEdit

There is very little comment on this publication. It is self-evidently somewhat to the right, but that is not an impediment to being accepted as a reliable source (given that all non-scientific publications will always carry some degree of bias). It has variously been described herein as a "major site", "reliable source", and "reputable yet biased". It includes much comment from academics and current and former (mostly the latter) intergovernmental agency and government staff members. Seeking comment as it is a significant site. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 11:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

oops. ta-da! https://www.theamericanconservative.com
Most if not all of the magazine is opinion articles, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Note for example the first article in your link, by Robert W. Merry, which says, "The Democratic contenders want open borders and free healthcare and to pay for it by hiking taxes." In fact none of them call for open borders and most of them oppose free health care. TFD (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"Most if not all" is based on your reading the strap line of one article then, by this veteran former WSJ reporter. I noted that it takes a right-view above. So option 2 additional considerations is reasonable. But it includes much serious reporting e.g. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-quietly-promises-billions-in-new-nuke-contracts/ Cambial Yellowing(❧) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I really wish people would stop knee-jerk repeating "opinion pieces are bad" as if they were repeating policy. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. GMGtalk 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The American Conservative is the largest outlet in the heterodox paleoconservative movement, a small right-wing movement in the US, and a very valuable source for paleoconservative ideas. However it is still mainly an opinion outlet and has faced criticism on issues of race. I would say it is useful for opinion but should be used with caution on general reporting due to its inherent paleoconservative bias. Toa Nidhiki05 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The American Conservative exists to promote a “Main Street” conservatism that opposes unchecked power in government and business; promotes the flourishing of families and communities through vibrant markets and free people; and embraces realism and restraint in foreign affairs based on America’s vital national interests.

I would use The American Conservative with caution, which is how we currently treat media from most advocacy organizations, including the Cato Institute (RSP entry), Media Matters for America (RSP entry), and the Media Research Center (RSP entry). As the publication is biased or opinionated, in-text attribution is recommended. — Newslinger talk 20:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would argue it is quite similar to Cato, even more so because it is the only major paleoconservative outlet. It’s basically the flagship publication of that movement and was even founded by Pat Buchanan himself. It’s not really a “straight news” or even news-opinion publication imo. Toa Nidhiki05 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Absolutely. I would treat both similarly. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Cambial Yellowing, what you call serious reporting is actually an opinion piece. The author is commenting on a story that appeared in the New York Times about Trump's plans to increase the nuclear stockpile. There is absolutely no reason why we would use this as a source instead of the New York Times article that reported the story. GMG, it's not that opinion pieces are bad, but that policy says they are rarely reliable sources. Mostly they repeat facts already reported in reliable sources. When they report original information, they are not subject to the same editorial control as news reporting. So one writer may say Trump is a Russian agent while another says he did not collude with Russia. One may say climate change will destroy the world in 10 years while another will say there is no climate change. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
What policy says is Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. But I have also seen this argument used to delete at AfD, and used to argue against using attributed statement of opinion from independently notable authors, writing opinion pieces in iron clad reliable publications. GMGtalk 01:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
That's from Biased or opinionated sources. I was referring to News organizations: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The two points are consistent: opinion pieces and biased sources are reliable for what their authors say. Some biased sources may also be reliable for facts as well, if the publishers made sufficient steps to ensure accuracy. Academic papers and books for example are almost always biased, which is why they are written. TFD (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, usable with attribution especially if the author has a particular reputation (for weight). Some independent analysis report it as "unfair interpretation of the news", "hyper partisan right", so unreliable for statements of fact. —PaleoNeonate – 02:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The American Conservative is fine for accurately reporting the opinions of its writers and we can presume its stories are honestly the writing of those to whom they're bylined; it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction in which it can be held liable for libel and it has a stable and consistent history of publication. However it does not have, nor does it claim to have, newsgathering capability and is essentially an opinion publication. One of the standards we should use to evaluate reliability is whether unambiguously RS cite its reporting. When I do a Google News search for "according to the American Conservative" or "the American Conservative reported" I don't get any meaningful results. So I would say it's reliable for attributing statements to its own writers but I would not use it for Who/What/Why facts like the size of a brush fire in Montana. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Law & Crime regarding the Proud BoysEdit

Previous discussion:[4] (not directly related)
Source:[5]
Article: Gavin McInnes

Content:

He is the founder of the Proud Boys, a neo-fascist[13] men's group

The Law & Crime source (included in that source bundle "13") says this in support of "neo-fascist":
" Law&Crime has previously described the group as “neo-fascist,” a designation also in use by NBC News, the Associated Press and others."

As you can see, the L&C internal link is just a link to another article that merely includes exactly the same sentence, minus the internal L&C link. My contention is that this is worthless, especially in light of their misunderstanding of who is saying what (see below).

The other three links are to NBC, Chicago Tribune, and Haaretz. But all 3 are the same article by the AP (the Haaretz one has some other stuff in it about Fox, but the relevant bit is cut-and-paste from the AP article). The AP source article does not call the Proud Boys "neo-fascist" in their own voice, they merely quote a single individual who, as far as I know, is not especially expert, and who is political. This is the quote:

"New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, a Democrat who is running for state attorney general, said, "I am disturbed and disgusted by the videos I've seen of members of the neo-fascist, white supremacist Proud Boys group engaging in hate-fueled mob violence on the streets of New York City.""

That's not what L&C thinks it is: it's not NBC/AP/others using a designation, it's NBC/AP/others quoting someone. That's a schoolboy error, and makes them unreliable in this case. It might affect how reliable they're considered in general, but I'm not making that point here. It may be worth noting that Beyond My Ken, who reverted my edit, accepted my removal of the Chicago Tribune article that was also in the WP bundled cite.[6]

Is this L&C link a reliable source for the claim that Proud Boys in neo-fascist? (Talkpage entry that led to this question is here). Bromley86 (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Not reliable. Law & Crime.com is one of those borderline outlets, so you have to look more closely at the source itself. The author has a legal background but virtually no journalism experience. I also looked through Law & Crime's masthead. While the editor-in-chief (Rachel Stockman) has ample experience, the rest of the editorial staff's experience is extremely skimpy. In addition to that, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This one doesn't pass the bar. R2 (bleep) 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
How is it an exceptional claim that a white-supremacist male-chauvinist gang run by a charismatic leader and evidencing an obsession with aesthetics including uniforms and rituals involving white-supremacist symbolic actions is neo-fascist? I mean if it quacks like a duck... (A note, I am not commenting on the reliability of the source so much as whether WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:PROFRINGE requirements are in play here.Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thing is... it is not our job to determine whether the Proud Boys are new-fascist or not. Our job is to accurately relay what reliable sources say about them. In this case, it is accurate to say that Letticia James has said they are... but it is NOT accurate to say that those simply quoting her have said so. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Well here's what one reliable source has to say [7] - gee what is another name for a western-chauvinist group of violent anti-semites and general racists? Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I would use the word “Bigots”... but that’s just me (and I am not a reliable source). The point is, we have to keep OUR opinions out of the article, and accurately relay the what the sources say. The source we are talking about (Law & Crime), misrepresented what AP/NBC/etc said. THEY didn’t call Proud Boys “neo-fascist”, they reported that JAMES called them such. If there are other sources that use the term directly, we can attribute the label to them as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The neo-fascist label seems common enough to me that I would treat it as factual. Mother Jones, HuffPo, Daily Beast, NY Daily News, Buzzfeed News, Boston Globe. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The Boston Globe article links to the Daily Beast article, which has corrected itself and removed the term "neo-fascist" and replaced it with "western chauvinist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socratesone (talkcontribs) 17:36, 5 July 2019}}
I'm still seeing "neo-fascist" on the Boston Globe article though, regardless of the link target. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
See WP:RACIST. Use contentious labels with attribution only. Galestar (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
That's untrue, as long as sufficient high quality sources passing the Verification test. We certainly don't have to list the names of jouralists and media organizations on a confirmed white supremacist group. And I protest not being informed of this discussion on article talk. Tsu*miki* 🌉 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
You should read WP:RACIST again. best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You still have to use attribution. (P.S. I wasn't informed either, saw it in my watchlist) Galestar (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
At a certain point that guideline gets steamrolled by NPOV, specifcially "Avoid stating facts as opinions." Now, I'm not saying here that the Proud Boys are nazis, but I think you would find a hard time getting consensus to confine "fascist" to an attributed quote in their article. My point is, there is somewhere in between being a victim of routine mudslinging and being the literal Nazis where we no longer need to treat "fascist" like it's an opinion. And therefore treating WP:RACIST as if it is sacrosanct is simply not a tenable position. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
If you'd like the policy changed, I urge you to go change it. Until that time, the policy dictates that it is an attributed statement. There isn't a line there that says Unless you *really* believe it. Galestar (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest you read WP:NPOV. I am quoting from it directly. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: The Herald (Glasgow)Edit

What is the best way to describe the reliability of The Herald (Glasgow)? I have searched the archives and although there are plenty of discussions on other sources with Herald in the name, I did not find one on this Scottish newspaper which is the longest running national newspaper in the World. If we have consensus, can we please add it to WP:RSP? Thanks, --SVTCobra 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Survey (The Herald)Edit

  • Option 1 The outlet has a consistent history of publication by which it can be evaluated, it has a legal personality in a jurisdiction where it can be held liable for libel, it has a gatekeeping process, and a cursory Google News search shows its reporting has recently been cited by known RS including BBC News and The Scotsman. Chetsford (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Unless it can be shown otherwise is a respectable and reputable newspaper.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1: While the circulation isn't large, it certainly looks to be an entirely legitimate newspaper. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. I don't see an {{rfc}} tag, or any reason to have an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
So what? People can ask questions on a noticeboard without filling an official RFC as well. Asking at a noticeboard is an alternative to the RfC process. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
That is the point. Ask at the noticeboard or do an RfC, no need in such an ordinary case to do both. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment re list of options. This page's header suggested such a list as "a common format for writing the RfC question". That was a recent addition, which is being discussed in an RfC on the talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Peter Gulutzan: I'm sorry, I'm new at this noticeboard. The Herald is not yet being used, but discussed in this long thread here, Talk:Carl_Benjamin#Benjamin_is_not_far-right, which I thought I'd spare the editors here from reading. I had hoped to point the editors there to WP:RSP or a previous discussion. Since I didn't find either, I thought starting this was appropriate. Maybe it's not. I don't know. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    Due to my bungling (mentioning rfc within double braces), Legobot added an RfC ID. Poof, now it's real. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    It's not real. First, this does not meet the requirements of WP:RFCST, it's just Legobot (talk · contribs) picking up whatever text lies between the |rfcid= and the next timestamp. Second, there is no actual {{rfc}} tag being displayed here as a box beginning "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion." is absent. It has been known for several years that Legobot does not respect <nowiki>...</nowiki>, which is why the advice at WP:RFC#Duration explicitly says not to do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 as per Chetsford, it has a long history as a reliable source, is not a tabloid, is quoted by other reliable sources, is long established, has received awards for its journalism, tthanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 5 Exclude as a journalistic source wherever academic sources are available. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Added RfC tag. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I presume this is some sort of hilarious joke that I don't understand. The fucking Glasgow Herald? Really? But anyway, per what Atlantic306 said above. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Actually I though it was already an approved source as old as it is ~ you know ~ the last time I was there laddie ~ I picked up a four leaf clover ~ who would have thought several years later, I would have had to remember that day ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I see many of you are having a laugh, but why wasn't The Herald on WP:RSP from all those years ago? Maybe, I am missing the point of that list. But I thought, it was supposed to be a quick resource to avoid this type of discussion. Also, I still don't know what technical mistakes I made in the nomination. Something about {{ RFC }}. Peter and Redrose confused me. I am sorry if I have wasted people's time. --SVTCobra 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    @SVTCobra: It was Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) who made the first technical mistake, in this post (causing effect 1 and effect 2). You didn't make a technical mistake in the nomination - but you did with this post (causing effect 3 and effect 4). I will say this once again: Legobot (talk · contribs), which is the bot that searches for and publicises RfCs, cannot tell the difference between a real RfC and a demonstration that relies on <nowiki>...</nowiki> to indicate to humans that it is a demo and not real. Legobot looks for the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) preceded by two opening braces. If it finds those five characters in that sequence, perhaps with spaces between the "{" and the "r", it assumes that it is a live RfC, even if nowiki is being used. So, as advised at WP:RFC#Duration, you should use one of the template-linking templates such as {{tlx}}. Hence why I made this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    The perennial sources list has inclusion criteria defined at WP:RSP § How to improve this list (one RfC or two significant discussions). Once the criteria are met, any editor can summarize the past discussions into a new entry on the list. If a source is not on the list, it generally means that the source is less popular, less controversial, or more specialized than the ones on the list. RfCs work best on controversial topics and topics that would benefit from community-wide discussion. To start an RfC, you'll need to add the RfC tag, which was overlooked here. Don't worry, just refer to WP:RFC, and you'll get it next time. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, understood. It just seems to me the list would be more useful if certain sources were 'green listed' ahead of them being challenged. Maybe it is to keep the list short, but a long list is preferable to searching the rfc archives, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explaination. Thanks, --SVTCobra 09:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
SVTCobra, you may want to take a look at WP:NPPSG, which is a work in progress. The idea for that page is to primarily meet the needs of new page patrollers who are evaluating articles about topics they are unfamiliar with, so it requires a weaker level of consensus necessary for inclusion (and consequently carries less weight and should be used with more caution).signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't regard my mistake as a "laugh". Sorry, and thanks Redrose64. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
No, they are laughing at my bringing this here in the first place. The Herald shouldn't have been debated it appears. --SVTCobra 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I'm not laughing at you, I think your bringing up the herald is a good thing ~ if you notice in my summary WP:Humor ~ by far it is not to degrade anyone in their edits ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Good for general topics, like any other quality newspaper. As with other general interest publications, WP:MEDPOP and the like apply: defer to specialist publications for specialist topics. RSP is for sources which are controversial enough to merit discussion here at RSN. Those that are obviously reliable (such as this) and those that are not (such as InfoWars) don't really need much debate. feminist (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC /review School of Economic Science articleEdit

Amid my response to WP:TOOLONG tags at this article I'm hereby requesting a general review for non-RS or self-published sources, and opinion on what should be done about them if there are any. For starters I'm unsure about these: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

Seperately, there was a discussion at the article Talk some time ago about the use of Shepheard-Walyn (publishers) LTD, [16] with user opinions that it is a self-publishing firm personally close to the School of Economic Science. It would be good to have the final word on that here; as far as I'm aware self-publishing and proximity to the subject would not disqualify its publications as sources for the article, but it might have a bearing on how they are used and the prominence they are given. Comments please. Cheers, --Roberthall7 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

For fear this will be ignored if you only give links, here's a quick copy-and-paste compilation from them.
1 Insight is better than ice cream, Frank Crocitto, Candlepower Communications, ©2000.
2 Moving against the stream : the birth of a new Buddhist movement, Sangharakshita, Bhikshu, Windhorse, ©2003.
3 Confusion no more : for the spiritual seeker, Ramesh S Balsekar, Watkins, 2007.
4 Nothing left over : a plain and simple life, Toinette Lippe, J.P. Tarcher/Putnam, ©2002.
5 People almanac. 2003, Cader Books, ©2002.
6 There's no more dying then : words of comfort and illumination. Stephanie Wilson, Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd, 2007.
7 The book of one : the ancient wisdom of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2010.
8 Back to the truth : 5000 years of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2007.
A quick look around yields
1 It seems Candlepower Communications have only published two books, both by Frank Crocitto.
2 Windhorse is a specialist publisher, a registered charity whose annual accounts show sales exceeding other income.
5 An annual publication from People, so might fail WP:BLPRS.
7 & 8 O Books was the original name and is now an imprint of John Hunt Publishing, described as "has been reinventing itself as a trade and co-operative publisher". "Regardless of whether a book is submitted and accepted with an author subsidy or not, according to John Hunt Publishing, ‘every title gets treated the same. No bookshop or reviewer is going to know if one title or another has had a subsidy.’" suggesting a significant number of authors pay for publication.[17] No indication of editorial oversight. 92.19.31.86 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Nice work. Do we concur (3) is Watkins Books, the publisher of esoterica? Do we concur it's in the spirituality genre? Do we concur (4) is the same publisher as TarcherPerigee, the Penguin subsidiary? Do we concur it's in the spirituality genre? Or autobiography? Are we able to rule these two in as RS for the purpose of WP:V referencing the opinion / POV of each author? -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
(3) and (4) may well be those publishers; I haven't checked. Any mention of the genre by the publisher should be treated only as an aid to bookshops when buying and shelving stock. It does not indicate whether a source is reliable. You last question opens a can of worms and it's not possible to write you a blank cheque. It varies how we treat authors' statements about themselves. It does seem you don't have access to those sources, so it would be dangerous to take a brief quotation or a Google snippet and assume it couldn't possibly provide a misleading and unbalanced view of the author's own statements about themselves, let alone to infer their POV from it and editorialise on that basis. 79.73.240.227 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So to be clear, which sources and associated content do you think should be removed from the article due to RS issues? -Roberthall7 (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?Edit

Would you consider The Month a reliable source for the statement that Louise d'Artois died of typhus? Futurist110 (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Given today it might be called a blog "edited by its members", no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any issue with it. The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation. Though as per Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Do we have a reliable source for the cause of death of Louise d'Artois?, if there is an objection to this, you do have a book by a historian that says the same thing, and does not cite The Month for it. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Someguy1221. No issue based on the RS guideline has been brought up about it. It was not self-published like a blog, but a literary, general interest Catholic review that published 19th & 20th century writers who are quite well known and respected to this day. Conceivably it might be considered biased if the purpose it was being cited for was a matter of religion; but that is not relevant here.John Z (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation."
Fine, who was the author? Who were the editors? Frances Margaret Taylor(a nurse)? Henry James Coleridge(professor of theology)?
Per, Wikipedia:Reliable sources;The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
  • Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
So far, aside from personal opinions that The Month is a "reliable source", nothing has been presented that indicates this is a reliable source, except maybe for religious topics. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Why even use this source for facts about history? I expect entire books were written about history of Parma, the Bourbon dynasty or Italy in general. Use these, don´t waste your time with sources of dubious reliability for this subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Refinery29Edit

According to this 2019 article from Refinery29, the age of actress Natalia Dyer is listed as age 24: "But, there are just four selfies of the 24-year-old to be found (yes, she is 24, no matter what lies Wikipedia says)." Is Refinery29 a reliable source? Please note that I've mentioned this information at Talk:Natalia Dyer#Date of birth. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Marginally reliable. It's another online publication targeting young women, in the same category as Bustle and PopSugar, which compete with more established print magazines like Cosmo and Allure. Probably more focused on commentary and publishing relatable content than ensuring that the facts are right, but OK as a source in a pinch. Be careful with the sponsored content they publish, such as this (linked from their front page). feminist (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Senior thesisEdit

Is this a reliable source under WP:SCHOLARSHIP for all of the content that it's currently used for in David_Cooper_(abolitionist)? (There's a fair amount of content cited to it so I'm not replicating all of it here - it's the DeBusk 2004 footnotes). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Since Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable when they have scholarly significance, undergraduate theses should be treated as the same. -Mys_721tx (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Less that a Masters thesis - so generally not. However the citations in the thesis may be useful, and the information in the senior's thesis could help in building the article - but it shouldn't be cited directly by us. The information in the footnotes - if it is quotations of other sources - could also be useful (though both to cite the quoted source directly, possibly (iffy) via "quotation in senior's thesis"). Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, Mys 721tx, and Icewhiz: — It would appear DeBusk's Thesis falls under the category of the second item under Wikipedia:Reliable sources-Scholarship : i.e. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." If it makes any difference, DeBusk's Bibliography, beginning at p. 37, is quite impressive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: It does not appear that this particular senior thesis has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed source or by an academic press. Am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
While there is no actual mention of a specific press, the Thesis was submitted to the University of Texas, reviewed, approved and signed by two university professors of history, one of them a Dean, and professionally printed. University presses are normally used in this capacity. Is there anyway we can AGF on that detail? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Nearly every thesis (at least in US/Canadian universities) is submitted to a university for publication after having been reviewed and approved by multiple professors of the relevant subject. If we AGF on that detail in this case, we would need to do so in pretty much every case; what then would be the point of having that guideline at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some degree of oversight and peer review from faculty at a university for these kinds of publications. Better than you would get from a newspaper so i would think it is a pretty decent source to cite. But if you find better sources, then those should be used instead. This could be a supporting source. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a publication (no publisher other than the university/author themselves - this isn't an academic press) - it's a thesis that is available online. Yes - it was read and signed off by two professors (though their examination may have been cursory - a senior's thesis would generally be reviewed less than a phd or master's thesis). It seems well written, cited, and is probably better than a random blog on the internet. However, it is not a published reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Nor are term papers (that are also vetted by the course instructor - who may be a professor - such vetting or grading does not constitute being "vetted by the scholarly community"). The B.A. thesis was cited once by others (per google scholar) - in this book. That's not a wide impact. You could use this thesis to help build the article (e.g. by reading it, using the sources cited in it) - but it is not a RS for Wikipedia purposes. Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, fair enough. Yes, I will try to refer to the cites that are used within DeBusk's work. DeBusk is sometimes used as a cite in conjunction with other cites/sources, so hopefully I will not have my nose stuck in a bunch of other books and online sources for too long trying to find substitutes.
  • @Nikkimaria: I noticed my nomination is no longer in the DYK Queue, or anywhere, so I'm wondering if I still can resubmit the nomination once this sourcing issue is resolved in a day or two. In any case, thanks to everyone for their time and effort spent on the nomination/article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Once the sourcing and the other issue mentioned on the nom page have been resolved, the article can be re-reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is actually a situation where referring to the cites within probably won't provide access to everything in the thesis. A considerable portion is cited to primary sources. I looked into this further to see if the author ever published this content somewhere else, perhaps under a different title, but came up with bupkis. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It clearly does not meet scholarship. That does not mean everything sourced to it should be deleted, but that it should be treated as unsourced material. TFD (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue's been resolved so I'm just adding my 2¢ as an academic to support what Icewhiz said above: theses, by default, are much lower quality sources than actual academic publications; profs understand that they are written to pass a course, not for the scholarly community, and are generally not going to impose anywhere near the same standards as they would if they were peer-reviewing them. So the fact that a thesis might go past the same pairs of eyes as an academic article does not mean much by itself. Citing PhD dissertations is pretty common, masters work is unusual but I've seen it, a BA thesis pretty much never since it's not generally expected that people make original contributions to a field until graduate level (so it's impressive this one got any at all). Although this thesis might be the first work to make use of certain primary sources, by default I would not consider its synthesis to be reliable. Cheers —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally having looked at the GBooks link Icewhiz provided it appears to just be listed in the bibliography and isn't actually cited. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 01:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Iran-HRMEdit

Is it OK to use the iran-hrm for the following the material in Women's rights in Iran article? Thanks, Saff V. (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) In mid-November 2018 United Nations General Assembly’s Human Rights Committee approved a resolution against Iranian government's continuous discrimination against women and limitation of freedom of thought.

Yes, you and various other users have already been told so several times by admins and whatnot. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Can I see some of "several times" that admins say the Iran-HRM is RS?Saff V. (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
No, not gonna fall for that. You very well know it yourself. Stop pov-pushing IRI edits. It's no secret that women in Iran are oppressed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop PA, while I just ask a question about the reliability of a source!Saff V. (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop pov-pushing by trying to censor the lack of women rights in Iran, as you have been strongly warned about stuff like this before [18]. Now you're taking it here [19] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

There are probably many reliable sources documenting women rights in Iran. As Iran-HRM is an ctivist group, I would not use their reporting without attribution. However, this doesn´t mean we should change article balance to the POV of the Iranian regime (which is - I fear judging form the talkpage posts - intention of the OP). Simply find better sources (peer reviewed papers, mainstream media reporting) and replace lower quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Situational. Looks like an advocacy group to me, so they would probably be at the same tier as Hope not Hate or maybe Southern Poverty Law Center. This particular article appears to be straightforward reporting and so should be OK as a source. feminist (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

urbanrail.netEdit

The wikipedia links to urbanrail.net over a thousand times. So, is it a reliable source?

Critics might say it is just an overgrown railfan site. However, sometimes amateurs do work of sufficient competence that professionals, who we would recognize as RS, treat them as peers, or even defer to their judgement.

Robert Schwandl, the site's founder, has published a series of books on rapid transit systems.

So, I think this site has graduated to RS status.

I started a stub on the site in userspace - User:Geo Swan/urbanrail.net

I'd appreciate others weighing in.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It does not meet rs because it is based on user contributions, just like Wikipedia. Presumably the editors get their information from published reliable sources. But note, "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." So don't just remove the material unless it is questionable. TFD (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that the website is very useful, but I am not sure if it is enough to be able cite on wikipedia (maybe it reliable for practical reasons, but maybe it would ok if no one challenges it...?). The issue is that though the site is run by someone who seems to be competent on the topic, it seems to be just his website. On the other hand, his books [20] might be a better sources than the website since those probably went though some editorial oversight. They look pretty detailed for example, [21]. I think the books are better sources and certainly can be cited on wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The Four Deuces wrote: "...based on user contributions, just like Wikipedia".

    This site isn't like the wikipedia. The site's founder, Robert Schwandl, wrote, or co-wrote, a series of books on the same transit systems he documented on the site.

    With a great deal of effort, possibly subpoenas, most wikipedia contributors could be indentified. But, for any reasonable level of effort, we are anonymous. For practical purposes we are anonymous. Some wikipedia contributors claim they are lawyers, and expect the rest of us to defer to their opinions on legal matters.

    An expert, like a lawyer, puts their real life reputation on the line, every time they offer their professional opinion. But even if the wikipedia contributors who claim to be lawyers, are actually lawyers, opinions they offer semi-anonymously are worthless. Even if they were not exploiting our semi-anonymous nature to spread dis-information, for insider-trading, they opinions they offer to a site like wikipedia could be quirky fringe opinions they have to keep to themselves at their day jobs. They aren't putting their professional reputations on the line.

    Robert Schwandl is the site's founder. He seems to be its primary editor, or maybe even its sole contributor. As a published author his reputation is on the line if the site's info is unreliable -- that's different than the wikipedia.

    I linked to the google search to his publication. This google scholar search shows scholarly articles cite urbanrail.net.

    We mustn't let a fear of non-notable blogs cause us to disclude things that bears a resemblance to a self-published blog, or calls itself a blog. When someone is a reliable authoritative author, things they publish that we might normally discount as a non-notable self-published blog should be treated as reliable as their books or scholarly articles.

    If Henry Kissinger maintained a self-published blog we would treat their self-published work as reliable as anything else he said or wrote.

    So, because scholars, who we would regard as RS, rely on urbanrail.net, why shouldn't we treat it as an RS? Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

My personal take on UrbanRail is that it should be treated like something like IMDb – I think it's OK as an 'External link', but I am uncomfortable using it as an inline "Reliable source" because the site's author does not indicate where he gets his information from like we're supposed to do on Wikipedia. There were also instances (in the past, when I did more rail article editing) where UrbanRail's figures didn't match the figures I got from operators and other sources... But, OTOH, in many cases, UrbanRail is the only game in town for rail system stats... So, I feel like it's OK to link to it as an 'EL', but I'm not comfortable in treating it like an WP:RS inline source. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Authors of secondary sources use sources that often don't meet reliability in Wikipedia, including Wikipedia articles. I note by the way that all of Shwandl's books are self-published, so he does not qualify aa an expert and does not claim to be one. TFD (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
None of that changes my opinion – OK as an 'EL', but not OK as an inline source. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

BoardGameGeek for lists of awardsEdit

BoardGameGeek is perhaps the most prominent board game website. In general, it is a wiki edited by fans. Submissions to its lists of awards won by a game, however, are implemented by an administrators.[22] More to the point, most organizations are terrible at providing consistent online histories of winners and nominees, so it can be very difficult to find award information that is neither from the game's publisher or from BoardGameGeek. The listings themselves are rarely controversial. Can BGG be cited as a reliable source for awards? Kim Post (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If it's that hard to find sources for an award, it's probably not prominent enough to include in Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Notability or due weight are not really the issues here—you're right that a significant award will be documented somewhere, such as in old issues of print periodicals not available online. It is a significant burden to editors if that is the only option, though. Kim Post (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I just want to make sure, you must have some basis for thinking the rewards are significant to begin with, right? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a forum, crowd sourced and unreliable. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I mean presupposing that the claim appears to be true and is significant to include in the article. Notable awards for a game are part of discussing its reception in an encyclopedic way. The question is inspired by e.g. the Origins Awards, reasonably well-known in its niche—the official website records past winners but not nominees. Think also of industry awards in Europe, which may not be covered by traditional English-language sources. (The idea that something must not be significant if it's not easy to find online is frankly quite silly.) The overall significance of an award can be recognized, and yet a particular winner or nominee may not have easily accessible sources even when there is little doubt about the fact. Sources that are not contemporary are likely to be drawing from BGG or the publisher, if not Wikipedia. Would it be better to follow "verifiable, not verified" and leave an entry uncited? Kim Post (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
No, as uncited information should not really even be there. And it is not sill to say that if the people who give out the award do not consider it significant neither should we. At the end of the day anyone (including the publishes of a game) can upload thee claims, and if it cannot be verified to an RS then it may not in fact be true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Its a user generated site with moderation. I am not sure it should be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Are articles from Mammoth Gamers considered a reliable source?Edit

[mammothgamers.com]? The reason why I feel that it is a bit off is because, on the about page, [23], the one that is in main concern, has the writter as a student who is taking a minor in Journalism. However that is not the major issue. The major issue is that the sources for what is being discussed about the subject(a YouTube channel), is actually from the subject being talked about or social media posts.

From what I know about reference reliability on Wikipedia, any social media post is considered "User Generated" and thus unreliable. Although people can argue about whether or not YouTube videos are considered "User Generated" , there is a rule of thumb on Wikipedia, if I am not mistakened, that a YouTube video or link can not be used as a reference when the Wikipedia article is talking about the the person or YouTube channel that created that YouTube link or video. Thus, I can presume that any article on the web that solely relies on a YouTube video and Social Media posts, can not be used as a reference on a Wikipedia article that is, on or talking about it the subject that created the YouTube video that the article is using to backup it's facts, as it would in the end be a "User Generated" in terms of Wikipedia.

I am presuming that the source is unreliable, but I just want to confirm if I am correct or not about my guess as it being unreliable on a Wikipedia page talking about the YouTube subject. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Unreliable - New website where none of the writers appear to have any sort of credentials. Sergecross73 msg me 11:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per Serge. Another one of those sites that is simply "comprised of gamers who specialize in all the surrounding aspects of geek culture!" and nothing more. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - I don't see much editorial oversight on this.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

businesstelegraph.co.ukEdit

Hello. At Daejan Holdings, you can see the businesstelegraph.co.uk (I will not link to this website!) source (incorrectly labelled "Belfast Telegraph") appears to be identical to the Financial Times source, except the FT uses a paywall. At Coldwar Steve, the businesstelegraph.co.uk source appears to be an article from the Guardian. Do you think these articles are republished under some kind of permission? Or should these references be removed per WP:COPYVIOEL? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

CEOWORLD MagazineEdit

I noticed this at C. P. Gurnani, "In 2018, Gurnani was named one of the "Best CEOs In The World" by the CEOWORLD magazine.[7][citation needed]".

CEOWORLD Magazine is, according to them, "the world's leading business magazine written strictly for CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, senior management executives, business leaders, and high net worth individuals worldwide.".

I noted per [24] that generally this is not an uncommon use of this source, "In the 2015 CEOWORLD magazine ranking of the top 50 hospitality and hotel management schools in the world, SAIT School of Hospitality and Tourism, ranked 47 just behind Swiss School of Tourism and Hospitality.[10][11]", "Also in 2011, Diaz was listed among CEOWorld Magazine's Top Accomplished Women Entertainers.[92]" etc.

Should this source be used like this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

At this time I am dubious, its "about us" page reads far to much like a promotional handout for investors. They have a lot of directors and PR types, but no editorial staff listed. Moreover [[25]] does not inspire much confidence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
CEOWorld is a reliable source for their own rankings, yes. As long as the wiki text gives the number of CEOs included or the rank-number in that year's ranking, it's fine. Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but is it WP:DUE to include considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEOWORLD magazine (thanks Slatersteven, didn't think of looking there)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I think (as the AFD seems to imply) this could be a case of link spam.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:DUE has no bearing on whether a person was ranked in the magazine's annual rankings. Every single mention of presence in the ranking (over 100 mentions on Wikipedia) has been added by different editors, none with COI, so it's not linkspam. We list plenty of awards and honors and rankings from publications that do not currently have Wikipedia articles, and that is not a criterion for inclusion in a list of Awards/Honors. Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
What..? No, WP:DUE has bearing on if a WP-article should bother to mention that CEOWORLD magazine bothered to mention the topic. Is it a significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable source? Awards and honors and rankings do not need separate WP-articles, but the giving of them should have a decent source in an independent RS (or like in this case, at least be a decent RS). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, Softlavender and Slatersteven, I give you [26][27][28][29][30]. Possibly related[31]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not seeing a problem with this magazine as long as it used for its ratings. It has a rather fleshed out staff including a couple named editorial review points. Non-notability has nothing on reliability so the AFD doesn't matter here. I'm not seeing a COI or spamming problem as suggested - just because one editor often turns to it doesn't make it a COI, and the pattern of how that editor adds is not consistent with what I'd expect to see if, on publication of a new top 100 list in CEOWORLD, that one would normally plug that at each and every article for those 100. I'd be dubious of any other use of this world for WP, but I don't see a problem with how its currently being used. --Masem (t) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with Masem... the only potential issue is WP:UNDUE - is the opinion of this magazine worth mentioning? I would say that is somewhat borderline, but probably on the “sure, why not” side. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you read the "write for us" page, they seem to run unsolicited work from random authors with little editorial control. In fact they request blog-style listicles, and specifically reject responsibility for published opinions of the authors. And headline stories running on their site now don't inspire confidence: "4 Reasons Your Business Needs Custom Lapel Pins" for instance. So, in a nutshell, no this should not be a source for quality articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Getty ImagesEdit

I originally posted this message here but was told this place is where it belongs. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 
The flag in question

Hi, I was looking for some help in solving an edit dispute over at LGBT symbols. Regarding the "lesbian pride flag" subsection, three of the four flags are cited by typical reliable sources (BBC, Refinery29, and the such). However, another editor has cited the existence of the remaining lesbian flag with photo files from Getty Images (links here and here). I note that neither of these images directly explain anything about the flag's use/adoption in their captions.

Compare those sources to this article I used to cite some other flags and their histories on the article. I'm wondering, do the images cited by the other editor suffice as a reliable source? After calling for a better source, the editor reverted my edit and wrote: As visual media, Getty Images is not exempted from being used as a reliable source that verifies info re flag appearing in pride events (Toronto) and dyke marches (Berlin). Getty Images supports the material as presented in the article.

Any way to solve this issue? I know the simple solution would be to find an alternative source, by the other editor involved in the dispute doesn't appreciate having "[better source needed]" by their images and insists that the sources they already added is enough. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 02:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

So, I think this probably belongs on WP:RSN or another noticeboard, and I would suggest that you move it (and my comment) to that board. I would also say that A) yeah, this doesn't pass RS; B) it doesn't really matter because we have a serious due weight and original research issue. That is, the fact that someone took a photograph and uploaded it to the internet does not make it relevant for any Wikipedia article. And using the fact that someone uploaded a photograph to the internet to support the statement that the flag is frequently seen at pride events... no, just no. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thank you, I'm going to post it at the noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talkcontribs)
No it is OR to use this to claim it is a lesbian pride flag, the sources do not say that. It may be, or it may be a Trans flag, or perhaps...but this is speculation. The fact is neither source identifies the flag as specifically lesbian.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
That. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I see you added "failed verification" templates to the article, but it was my proposal to not include the flag at all until reliable sources are found. Also, you changed the subsection to read A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals... (emphasis added) but I believe you should revert this change per WP:WHATPLACE and until the edit dispute is resolved. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but this was my solution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Yes, but the point is that all involved editors all have their own different solutions... please, wait until the issue is resolved before deciding to include the flag or not. The sources do not even say the flag is "sometimes" used or even represents lesbianism. Please act in good faith and self-revert. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, there are at least two sources that show its use, that is enough to say "it is sometimes used". Secondly, there is the idea of compromise (as I imply ion the talk page, where this is not (as far as I can see) even been discussed), we lose nothing by keeping these sources for now (and we can remove when no effort is made to improve them). Moreover your tone looks a lot like "dammit this is what I want and I WANT IT NOW!". I am trying to find a way to achieve a compromise, not give either side the victory they think they so richly deserve.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: No, I don't "want it now" (I insist you reread where I wrote please, wait until the issue is resolved)... There is no compromising of sorts for WP:RS, that's why I brought this to this noticeboard. That's also why I'm asking that you self-revert because I'm not going to engage in an edit war over this with you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I have stated my reasoning, and this is my last word on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to, can I insist that somebody look into reverting the edits done by User:Slatersteven over at LGBT symbols until this dispute is resolved? I'm basing this call on WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:WHATPLACE. Specifically calling attention to the wording A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals... Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In terms of RSness of Getty Images - I would view these as WP:PRIMARY, with reliability varying according to the photo journalist - e.g. this one is by Omer Messinger/NurPhoto and this one is a stock photo. In both cases I'd probably view the photographs as being reliably taken at the place and time indicated in the caption. As for interpretation of the image - photographers and Getty can make mistakes (obviously they get the visual description right, but finer details can go awry in the captions - the captions are there for journalists to search through - who then (often) make their own decision on captioning). Neither image has details on the flag in question (beyond it being used) - though I'd suspect sources are available.Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
In terms of some sources - this is combination of the Gender symbol#Sociology (Double female symbol)[32][33][34] with the rainbow flag. Now I will admit I did not manage to find a reliable source connecting the two (double-female on top of the rainbow flag) - though many sources mention them one next to each other on a list. You can however - find it on Amazon. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: There is no doubt that such a flag has been used before. But from what I understand, a reliable source (not Amazon) is required if we are to mention it. We also can't connect the dots on our own. In revamping the article, so many of the flags were backed-up and readded through reliable sources, so if this flag was widely used, wouldn't it be easy to find it on other lists of LGBTQ+ symbols? That's where I see the inclusion of this flag as being worthy of discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
To be clear - I did not suggest Amazon as an actual source (it is an indication this exsits and there might be sources, but it is not a source for our purposes). It's possible there is a source (other than the PRIMARY Getty images - which are reliable in the sense that they document two localized uses of this flag - but nothing wider) for rainbow flag + double-female. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

My edit [[35]] is in reference to two other sources [[36]], [[37]] and has nothing to do with the two Getty images being discussed here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I know this subsection is titled "Getty Images", but caption-less images included in two other articles also don't merit the use of the word sometimes in my opinion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 16:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The issue I have is that, though variations on that flag can be seen in those articles, the articles aren't about the flags. The articles don't mention the flags. They're just... there. In the images. I don't think we need to mention something in a Wikipedia article that the sources don't bother to mention either. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
For the lesbian pride double-Venus flag, the text states: "A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals and dyke marches is the rainbow flag with two interlocked astronomical Venus symbols". The keyword being seen. The text does not include the who/what created the flag and when. So unless the definition of "seen" (i.e. past participle of "see"; definition of (verb) "see": Perceive with the eyes; discern visually; Be or become aware of something from observation or from a written or other visual source) is different in Wikipedia, the sources verify what is "seen". Pyxis Solitary yak 11:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As has been pointed out (issues of Undue aside) none of the source say it is a lesbian pride flag, that is wp:or. Also there are (at least) two distinct designs in use in those pictures, thus it may also fall foul of wp:synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I also note you are posting images of this flag all over gay subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
First of all, are you hounding me all over Wikipedia? Sniffing after me? Second, I switched the similar file with black Venus symbols with the white Venus symbols file. No need to blow a cork over it. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I just look at your edit history and found it odd that you keep on positing images of this flag, one that no RS seems to have notices in and of itself.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You should review my edit history for the past 11 years. I'm sure at least one of them will inspire you to write 1000 words about me. Btw, re the Lesbian rainbow flag, there's this one and this one. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
So? Wikipedia is not an RS. No one disputes this exists, the issue is do RS support its inclusion in the way written, they do not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
So what does "seen at pride festivals and dyke marches" translate as? Because that is in the way written. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Its claiming that is is a lesbian pride flag that is the issue for me, the rest is an Undue, but not RS issue).Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The flag is composed of the double-Venus symbol that represents the lesbian community, and the rainbow flag concept that represents Gay pride. Double-Venus symbol + Pride rainbow flag = Lesbian pride rainbow flag. I have not been able to find who was the first to put the two together and when it first appeared at a Pride parade, festival, and Dyke March with a Google and Duck Duck search. It's probably buried somewhere in a general book about the community then-known as L & G or an out-of-print publication. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw, remember the edit you made here? Take another look. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: Okay, so any sort of combination of LGBT symbol on a pride flag could be made ... that isn't back by reliable sources and doesn't help with anything. Again, this may also be an issue of WP:UNDUE, but the point is though there is no doubt that such a flag does exist, that doesn't tell us what it stands for, how it's use, it's adoption, etc. American canton, Star of David, black chevron from India... it goes on and on.
We know nothing from what's currently provided. Also, in regards to your linking of my edit, it's worth noting that you've reverted my warning left on your talk page, indicating you're aware of the message and have read it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I gave you a soft warning on edit warring on 01:55, 10 July 2019. You've been playing tit-for-tat since then. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Please reply to the more pressing issue here... that Getty Images doesn't quite say anything. Bring the more personal issues to my talk page if you feel the need to. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My responding to your comment "it's worth noting that you've reverted my warning left on your talk page" is replied with "Bring the more personal issues to my talk page"? LOL! Pyxis Solitary yak 01:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis, you linked to my edit (Take another look.) and then I indicated that I warned against edit warring (Also, in regards to your linking of my edit,)... To me, it appears that you're dodging topics actually worth discussing and only reply to trivial matters. Why have you ignored my links to other Getty Image files? Why have you failed to make an adequate case for why you believe we should use this flag? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That just seems like a very silly basis for having content in an article. I could put literally anything on a flag, wave it at a pride event, and if I manage to be in frame when a photographer snaps a pic for a newspaper, that means my flag being at the event makes it into Wikipedia? Someguy1221 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That would be an issue of undue, not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: When you make weird accusations like are you hounding me all over Wikipedia? Sniffing after me? against other users, it's hard to take you seriously. You made similar comments against me on your talk page. Your edit history isn't a secret to anyone (unless you can point to a particular WP policy) and that's why the special contributions page for every user exists. Nice4What (talk ·contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 22:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There you go again. Injecting yourself into a convo between two editors, just as you did in my talk page ... which you wouldn't have been aware of unless you had lurked it. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis, all on-wiki discussions are public and especially so on a noticeboard. This is not a debate between you and one other party. This is an effort to find consensus. --SVTCobra 23:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
My comment addressed the "You made similar comments against me on your talk page." The one-on-one convo between me and User:Slatersteven that was referenced by that statement did not regard "consensus". It's important before stepping into this to discern one subject from the other. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That makes zero difference – the point is all on-wiki discussions are public. You already know my explanation for why I used your talkpage (as seen by the fact that you reverted the message) and I believe you can't blame another user for looking at your edit history when you've been actively including this image file into articles despite being engaged in this talk page conversation, showing that you are aware this flag is currently in dispute. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's an inch of rope for you: your injecting yourself (on 6 July 2019) into a conversation on my talk page between me and another editor was before I switched (on 10 July 2019) the flag file in the Lesbian article. With each new comment (including the one you struck-out above) and article edits involving the flag, your purpose regarding this matter has acquired the stance of a personal agenda. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have asked before but never got an answer, but what "agenda" am I pushing? I think you've made this accusation about three times. It can be perceived as hurtful, you know? But you've never explained it. Maybe here's not the right place, but there's my talk page if you like (I promise I won't revert 😊). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Photographs, absent any text to specifically describe what is going on, cannot be used as a reliable source to make claims like this. If that photo appears in the NYTimes in an article about LBGT Pride celebrations, with some type of caption to affirm what, when, and where it was being seen, that might be a start, but this seems to be an outstanding claim that because we have one photo that shows one varierty of a pride flag, it means it has significant weight in that community. It's just way too much OR from a questionable source. --Masem (t) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. There are many variations but unless there's a reliable source that says it's been adopted by a particular organization, I don't see how it should be included. There is nothing to distinguish it from any other home-made flag or insignia that follows the general theme of a Pride march. --SVTCobra 00:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Federalist PapersEdit

Hi there, I thought I'd ask about this publication, The Federalist Papers, which I couldn't find in the archives, though given that it bears the same name as the 18th Century essays, I might have missed something. I've looked at the page and can't find much info about editorial policy, staff, etc., so I am dubious as to RS status. I ask because it's being used on the Jeffrey Epstein page, which is obviously controversial, and in my thinking, should be looking for high-quality sources. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Umm.... I'd say no (based on first blush impression). Seems like a website (less known than the The Federalist (website) and obviously not related to the namesake - The Federalist Papers) with an unclear editorial policy. Running down the main page it seems unlikely this could be used for anything other than rather biased opinion. Doesn't look like they get all that much traffic - [38]. You'd think better sources would be available for Epstein.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter in this instance, because TFP is citing the Washington Post. TFP may be where the user first read the information, but it's not the source, and isn't what we should be citing if we cite anything. GMGtalk 14:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed re: The Washington Post, but there is definitely a subtle difference in emphasis -- note "according to court documents" in TFP, while "according to court documents filed by Edwards" in The Washington Post. A small but meaningful distinction--to me, anyway! Thank you both. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd treat the same as any blog until proven otherwise. It has the look and feel of a news website but reading a handful of the "articles" they contain almost exclusively opinion pieces. Heavy on value-laden opinions and light on actual facts. Galestar (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Value Investor Insight as a Reliable sourceEdit

Hello - I am trying to update the Lucerne Capital Management page, specifically the information pertaining to Assets Under Management. Currently the page is citing $478 million (March 2015) - however the firm has grown since then, and the Firm's AUM now sits at around $750 million. On June 26, 2019 Lucerne was featured under the "Investor Insight" section of the Online publication Value Investor Insight (https://valueinvestorinsight.com/). However, there was some issues with editors regarding the independence and reliability of Value Investor Insight as a source.

I liked to the article on the Value Investor Insight domain (https://valueinvestorinsight.com/Content_Premium/investor-insight-continental-divide-june-2019.aspx), but unfortunately this content was only available for subscribers of the online publication. I understand this makes the verification of this source difficult. We've therefore purchased the rights to distribute the content and have posted in on our own website (http://www.lucernecap.com/ValueInvestorInsight-June2019.pdf) in order to remove the content from the paywall.

Within the article:

"Given the secular backdrop in Europe since he founded Lucerne Capital Management in 2002 to invest there, you might expect Pieter Taselaar to regret that going-in choice. But that’s not at all the case. “We’re not investing in Europe to be in Europe, we’re investing in Europe because we know it well and we think it’s inefficient,” he says. “That’s how we generate returns.” And generate returns he has. His long/ short Lucerne Capital Fund, now with $750 million in assets and co-managed with Thijs Hovers , has returned a net annualized 11.2% since inception, vs. 1.2% for the STOXX Europe 600 Index. At a time when investor enthusiasm for European stocks is particularly low, they’re finding upside in such areas as wireless towers, mining equipment, banks and diversified industrials."

Just a bit of background Value Investor Insight:

Value Investor Insight's President and as the Editor-in-Chief is John Heins - who is a well experienced investment professional, writer, as well as an academic[1], taking an role as the C.T. Fitzpatrick Professor of Value Investing at the University of Alabama. Furthermore, Mr. Heins graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and received an M.B.A. from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.[2]
Also, In Aug 2018 - Value Investor Insight was listed as #12 of the "Top 17 Value Investing Blogs You Should Be Reading" according to Forbes[3]

I hope this supports that this is a in fact a very reputable 3rd party investment publication. It comes out monthly and is subscription based.Jonathan Larken (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of Value Investor Insight, a statement from a publication as to the assets held by a single fund is not a good source for its manager's assets under management. I would consider going to a primary source, Lucerne Capital Management's reported assets under management in its Form ADV filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There you can see, in response to Part 1A Item 5.F, that it reported assets under management of $1,107,764,000 (probably as of 12/31/2018, although it's possible that the 3/29/2019 filing used a more recent date). The Form ADV may also have some other useful information, although of course it should be used with the care appropriate for a primary source. John M Baker (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
To avoid any question here, I would handle this by saying something like "The company in March 2019 reported assets under management of $1,107,764,000," citing to the Form ADV as the source. While assets reported on Form ADV are, in real life, more reliable than third-party sources, this clarifies the origin of the number and may assuage concerns over the use of a primary source. John M Baker (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
As for Value Investor Insight itself as a reliable source, the characterization of it by Forbes as a blog appears to be accurate (although it's a blog that can charge for access), so I would be hesitant to rely on it in general, see WP:BLOG. John M Baker (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks John M Baker - that was a great idea to use the a primary source - I will just qualify that number on the ADV as "regulatory assets under management." Jonathan Larken (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Maxit for WeChatEdit

Is Maxit (maxit.my) page titled "WeChat Forges Partnership with Chatime" a reliable source for the claim "In 2013, WeChat, announces their partnership with Chatime." in the WeChat article? — Newslinger talk 22:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source or not, it’s a pointless sentence written in PR speak that tells us nothing. What is the “partnership”? What does it seek to achieve? Six years later, what is its status? Just delete it, I reckon. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And I should add that the source cited is clearly a regurgitated press release and shouldn’t be relied upon. The “for more information please visit” the companies’ website bit at the bottom is the giveaway. —Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This does not look like a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds WP:UNDUE to me. Partnerships between social networks and retail outlets are routine and common. I don't see anything special about this partnership between WeChat and Chatime. feminist (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your input. The discussion has been continued at WP:COIN § Chatime. — Newslinger talk 22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

StatistaEdit

Is Statista considered a reliable source for data or analysis? Jc86035 (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Generally reliable as their data and analysis have been cited by sources we consider reliable. My experience with Statista graphs/figures have generally been good as well. feminist (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. The site says "Within just a few years, Statista managed to establish itself as a leading provider of market and consumer data. Over 600 visionaries, experts and doers continuously reinvent Statista, thereby constantly developing successful new products and business models." [39]. It is a marketing firm, not an established polling or survey firm like say Pew Research Center, Census, or General Social Survey. Sometimes they compile their own statistics or do not cite their sources. May be good for a business, but not Wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Taki's MagazineEdit

I've seen Taki's Magazine listed as a source a number of times recently and I'm worried by its use, it appears to be something similar to Breitbart. Before I go removing it and related claims from articles I'd like some feedback regarding its reliability. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Taki's Magazine?

  1. Generally reliable for factual reporting
  2. Unclear or additional considerations apply
  3. Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  4. Publishes false or fabricated information

Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

pure opinion, not reporting--and not particularly good at it. It's not as reckless as Breitbart, but that isn't saying much. Opinion is never a reliable source for anything other than the view of the author, and I don't think their authors are notable enough to have views worth including. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely unreliable - it's well-known for publishing racist garbage. Its managing editor was once noted neo-Nazi and white supremacist Richard Spencer, and it counts among its contributors a number of fringe extremist racists such as Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire (fired from National Review once his white supremacist work at Taki's Mag became publicly known) [40] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Taki's Magazine (a.k.a. Taki's Mag or Takimag) occupies a similar niche as VDARE (RSP entry), which was deprecated in December 2018. The site is biased or opinionated, and its published opinions are very likely to constitute undue weight. Taki's Magazine's reputation has been panned by a number of reliable sources:
Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources
Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website.

Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence.

"McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry)

The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn.

This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that.

"Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry)

After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks.

In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism.

"Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry)

Unfortunately, Taki morphed from a harmless snob into a nasty purveyor of alt-right venom. His Taki’s Magazine is regarded as the leading alt-right outlet after Breitbart News (RSP entry). Quite recently he praised the ultra-hard-right party Golden Dawn as mostly “good old-fashioned patriotic Greeks”.

"How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman

Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos
The proto–Gavin McInnes.

An elderly Greek playboy who named one of his dogs “Benito,” once spent three months in jail for cocaine possession, and runs the leading publication for hepcat paleoconservatives and cosmopolitan racists: Takimag, which prides itself on telling hard truths about the superiority of whites without being “boring” about it.

"Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry)

— Newslinger talk 09:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course, WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to use questionable sources, including this site, as a primary source equivalent for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that the claims are due and covered by reliable sources. Outside of WP:ABOUTSELF, there is little to no reason to use Taki's Magazine. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We should not be using this. I am loathe to option-4 this without clear indication of fabrication - however it is fairly obvious we should not be using a far-right publication - mostly UNDUE for opinion, and lacking a reputation for fact checking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. The claim is it was "isted as a source a number of times recently" but not a shred of a hint of where or how. No evidence that there is a dispute requiring an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source. Bacondrum (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so what if I never saw it used, what difference would it make? I want to know if other editors think it's reliable, it's called seeking consensus...What on Earth could possibly be wrong with that? Bacondrum (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I can't see how it makes any difference - if the source is unreliable, then that's what it is, but here's the version of the page that I first saw it on. I removed it as it was obviously not even close to good enough. Upon reading the source I was shocked at the quality of the publication (or lack thereof), I then noticed the same crappy source used on related pages (all of which appeared to have suffered from extensive tendentious editing), so I made the request, to see what other editors thought of the thing. Bacondrum (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
"here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims" Obviously false, as demonstrated here and here. Yes, context absolutely matters, but we do have standards for general reliability, claims to the contrary are demonstrably false. Bacondrum (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I was going to respond here, but my response is better suited for the RfC below (RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs), which focuses on this matter. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Terrible source that shouldn't be used for anything, except limited primary source use, e.g. the article in Takimag that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Use only for attributed statements of opinion, with in text attribution per David Gerrard. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Is there any evidence they have A reputation for poor fact checking?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Slatersteven, not that I have seen. It looks like the reasons that this source is being considered unreliable is due to some editors not liking the views of some of the sources contributors, it occupying a similar niche to sources widely considered unreliable, and due to being "far-right". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Have a look at the articles, mostly opinion, much of it is overtly racist. Media Bias Fact Check list had this to say. It's clearly a highly-partisan site which ignores general principles of journalism in order to attack perceived ideological opponents and defend perceived ideological allies. If this is the standard for a reliable source then anything and everything should be considered a reliable source, including editors personal opinion, YouTube and Facebook. It was edited by out and out Nazi Richard Spencer. You'd be setting your standards very low to callthis anything but completely unreliable, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

~ free map tools ~Edit

Is free map tools good enough as a RS to use for distance calculations ~ thanks in advance for your answer ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a set of tools, I find it hard to imagine citing it for a fact. It's like citing a tape measure - "it's a very reliable tape measure, from Black & Decker, used by all the experts…". --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCsEdit

  • Should we agree to halt the use of RFCs containing four options for "general (un)reliability" of a source, particularly when said RFC contains no specific instances of claims or citations?
  • While it may be useful to deprecate heavily-used and clearly-unreliable sources, the corollary is not true: Wikipedia is unable to promote a source to "reliable for any assertion about any topic whatsoever"; reliability is always assessed based on the nature of the claims being made.
  • With these parameters in mind, is it futile for us to continually open RFCs here on WP:RSN if an outcome of "generally reliable for everything" is counter-productive and misleading?
    • Sub-question: should such RFCs be permitted as long as they include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact, such as one which is currently in dispute on an article's talk page?

Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Elizium23: Could you provide a couple of examples of the types of RfCs you think should be halted? 01:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talkcontribs)
    Sure: WP:RSN#RfC: Quadrant Magazine, WP:RSN#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh, WP:RSN#RfC: The Herald (Glasgow). I didn't even have to visit our archives for them. I am not sure where this template originated, but it has rapidly become the de facto method for opening discussions here on RSN, and I do not like it, no sir, not one bit. Elizium23 (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: This RfC is related to the RfC at WT:RSN § RfC: Header text, which affects the header text of this noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose halting RfCs. By generally reliable, we're referring to sources that have a strong reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. They usually have a reputable editorial team, and tend to be endorsed or used by other reliable sources for factual information. Context always matters, and the consensus shown in some discussions on this noticeboard restrict the scope of what a source is generally reliable for (e.g. The Verge RfC).

    Note that the word generally means "usually" in this context, not "always". The general classification of a source is only the starting point for evaluating reliability, and specific uses of a source can always be brought to this noticeboard for a more targeted review. If a source frequently publishes articles outside of its circle of competence, like in your example about science and religion, then the source should not be considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

    Then perhaps the question we should be asking is: Is there evidence that [source] have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight? If a source meets these criteria, and independence from the topic, etc., then per WP:NEWSORG we may deem it to be generally reliable for statements of fact. But I do not think it is useful to whip up boiler-plate RFCs directly asking whether [source] is 'generally reliable' (and it's interesting that the qualification for statements of fact is, here on RSN, often missing from this question. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, The 3 RfCs you have linked (Quadrant, Daily Graphic, The Herald) do include the "for factual reporting" qualifier after "Generally reliable". If this is not descriptive enough, then I agree that it would be helpful to provide more detailed definitions of each option in RfCs of this type. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth? Zilch. Newslinger opposed directly quoting or pointing to the RfCs, successfully. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Your reference and link to a discussion on edit filters have nothing to do with generally reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I am neutral on the restriction ("include at least one concrete example of an assertion of fact") suggested in the sub-question. While we should encourage editors to provide examples of how a source is being used, a question on the general reliability of a source shouldn't be unduly focused on one specific use of that source. — Newslinger talk 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose halting RfCs. What's wrong with seeking a consensus as to the reliability of a source? I thought we were aiming to have high quality reliable sources? If an outlet is unreliable, it is unreliable WP:SPADE. I personally think it's a very useful means to ensure quality citations and avoid myriad edit wars and content disputes before they happen. Bacondrum (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't the whole purpose of this noticeboard to ask questions regarding reliable sources? Bacondrum (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't this discussion be held somewhere else? This is the reliable source noticeboard, isn't it? Perhaps the talk page would be more appropriate? Bacondrum (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose halting RfCs. It's appropriate to have one big discussion about a source's reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction since this doesn't usually change from article to article. This doesn't prevent us from discussing its appropriateness in a specific instance where things like attributed quotes or scientific/medical claims come into play. –dlthewave 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though there are a tad too many of these lately. Generally a RfC here on the general use should be preceded by a discussion on a particular use (here), and also demonstrating that we have a general problem (e.g. We use source X in 100 articles, despite source X being described as Y....). Lately - there have been some RfCs here that jumped the gun on proper pre-RfC discussions. However, we definitely shouldn't have a moratorium on RfCs of these type generally - as discussions sources is exactly what this board is for. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Be more careful Don't reach straight for the RfC unless other options have proved fruitless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. RfCs should only be used in order to cleanly remove/"deprecate" currently in-use sources. For sources where no formal action is envisaged, start with a standard discussion. feminist (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as there ahave been far too many in a short period so that the discussion is often truncated, undetailed, lacking participation and depth of investigation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The four-way question is deceptive and not consistent with WP:RS. It misleads by claiming to be a "deprecation" so people who know this dictionary definition will think it's about "disapproval" but in fact the intent (not necessarily implemented) is that an edit filter will result in a message that references are generally prohibited. It misleads by claiming to be "as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail" but in fact the Daily Mail closers didn't say "deprecating", said the prohibition is of use as a reference, and said opinion pieces are okay. It misleads by causing links to essay-status pages as if they have some sort of authority, when the real authority is WP:RS policy (the one that says to always take context into account). The Herald (Glasgow) RfC is an example of misuse -- an editor included the question about treating like The Daily Mail, not with evidence that serious people might think that but it's in the four-way question. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Excuse me, sir, but "misuse"? I felt The Herald belongs on WP:RSP. What is the process if not posting here and getting consensus? It was my first time at this noticeboard. I saw the "four option" query being used here as if it was a template or standard format, so I followed suit. Other contributors even thanked me for the submission or said they thought The Herald was already on the list of perennial sources. And since this is policy currently being voted on, I don't think I was wrong, so I thank you not to characterize my submission as misuse or abuse of the noticeboard. --SVTCobra 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
SVTCobra Indeed, all this talk of misuse and dishonesty is way out of line, what happened to the assumption of good faith? I too saw that NEWSLINGER had used that format and I thought it was a clear and efficiant way to get feedback, I never asked for anything to be depreciated. Isn't this notice board precisely for asking about the reliability of sources? I've seen very little reasoning used here, just claims that too many people are asking questions or that those who ask are being dishonest. Should probably get rid of this noticeboard then, why have it if you aren't allowed to ask too much or your going to be accused of dishonesty. Bacondrum (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither of the Daily Mail (RSP entry) RfCs (2017 nor 2019) concluded that "opinion pieces are okay". See Wikipedia:Citing sources for what reference means.

Even deprecated sources qualify for the WP:ABOUTSELF exception, which allows their use for uncontroversial self-descriptions in the rare case that they are WP:DUE and covered by reliable sources. The reliable sources guideline is being honored in all of these RfCs, because context matters in each of the four options. (The only exception is the CoinDesk RfC, and I opposed the proposal in that RfC's statement because this criterion was not met.) WP:DEPS defers to WP:RS and explicitly states, "reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others". If there is any confusion about what deprecation means, a link to WP:DEPS will clarify.

When an editor asks about a low-quality source, we should be able to say that it is questionable, and that it generally shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Repeatedly debating the inclusion of poor sources that have earned abysmal reputations for repeatedly publishing false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, or pseudoscience is a waste of the community's time. RfCs of this type allow us to make decisive evaluations resulting in consensus that endures until there is evidence that the source's reputation has changed. Consensus is a policy. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I said "misuse" correctly but should have emphasized it was innocent misuse, which is obvious. I said "and [Daily Mail RfC closers] said opinion pieces are okay" because despite Newslinger's irrelevancies it is a fact, see the NPOVN archive of a May 2017 discussion and look for the words "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here." Nobody said anything against "we should be able to say that it is questionable" because that's not the topic. Consensus is not a policy that allows overriding WP:RS because WP:CONLEVEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 65 § Daily Mail, the full statement from Tazerdadog (one of the 2017 Daily Mail RfC closers) was:

Attributed opinions of people other than the author were considered in the RFC and were included in the ban (IAR notwithstanding). Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC, and a reasonable exception from the ban appears correct here.)

The attributed opinions of any article's author are covered under WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to all questionable (and deprecated) sources, although due weight should also be considered. If you don't like the results of the two Daily Mail RfCs, you can try to convince the community that "its use as a reference" should not be "generally prohibited". Overturning the current consensus would require a third RfC on the Daily Mail, which is not advisable right now because it's highly unlikely to succeed.

Nobody is suggesting that WP:RS should be overridden; the type of RfC being discussed here uses WP:V and WP:RS to identify questionable sources for what they are: "generally unreliable". — Newslinger talk 08:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is "about self", an honest title that has nothing whatever to do with Newslinger's assertion. But that doesn't matter since now there's no dispute that the closers said attributed opinions are okay, which is one of the reasons the question is misleading. I said nothing in this thread about overturning WP:DAILYMAIL, perhaps Newslinger mixes that up with my remarks that one shouldn't say something is like The Daily Mail and its RfC when it's not. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:ABOUTSELF. Using the example from the NPOVN discussion, the article that Katie Hopkins published in the Daily Mail qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF as an uncontroversial representation of what Hopkins's own opinions are. However, this is only due in the article on Katie Hopkins (and if it were more prominent, it would be due in the Daily Mail article). It is not due anywhere else. Claiming that "the closers said attributed opinions are okay" is extremely misleading, since it conflates WP:RSOPINION (which the Daily Mail does not qualify for, because it's not considered a reliable source) with WP:ABOUTSELF (which is a restrictive exemption granted to all questionable sources and self-published sources). — Newslinger talk 20:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The closer remarks that I pointed to made no mention of WP:ABOUTSELF, Newslinger while claiming to quote "the full statement from Tazerdadog" quoted only one full statement, another was "However, the DM does not have a reputation for altering the words of the author of the piece, so this can be taken as one of the exceptions we tried to write into the close.", the point at issue wasn't secretly WP:ABOUTSELF unless one believes that when Katie Hopkins wrote "Britain is faced with some hard questions ..." the word Britain was a synonym for Katie Hopkins. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
If the term deprecation is an issue, anyone can submit a requested move from Wikipedia:Deprecated sources to Wikipedia:Highly questionable sources or some other name. The name makes no difference to me. However, I get the impression that you're not objecting to the name, but to the adoption of edit filters and other mechanisms that discourage the use of highly questionable sources. There is consensus that RfCs are the preferred process for determining whether these mechanisms should be implemented. You can verify this through the 18 successful RfCs that deprecated 17 different sources, and you can also read this paragraph from the closing statement of the 2019 Daily Mail RfC:

Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.

— Newslinger talk 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There was absolutely zero "lingering concern" that something like The Herald (Glasgow) is a tabloid meriting removal, but there is concern here about the misuse of a misleading 4-way question that was never suggested in WP:DAILYMAIL closing remarks. As for "identifying questionable sources" -- great idea, because it's normal behaviour following instructions at the top of this WP:RSN page, i.e. it's not an RfC with four fixed questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
As of right now, nobody in the RfC for The Herald has claimed that it is a "tabloid meriting removal". WP:RFC lists a number of accepted uses for an RfC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content." The type of RfC under debate solicits input on whether a source generally meets the requirements of WP:V (a policy) and WP:RS (a guideline). Outside of the instructions in WP:RFCST, declaring whether an RfC format is or isn't "normal behaviour" for other editors is excessively bureaucratic, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
You brought up "lingering concerns about tabloids", I observed there was no lingering concern, so the excuse that you brought up doesn't hold. You brought up how good identifying questionable sources was, I said that's normal and in keeping with WP:RSN, I don't think I need to excuse that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as per dlthewave. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose also per Dlthewave. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - those kind of RfCs are appropriate for sketchy sources which are widely used. Like Daily Mail or Fox News kind of stuff. They are not appropriate for more narrow topics or sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Newslinger and others, with the added notes that 1) this should probably take place on the talk page for this board and 2) there's already a discussion under way there on an overlapping topic. signed, Rosguill talk 22:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's have a moratorium on RfCs about RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hahaha! My thoughts exactly, thanks for the chuckle.
  • Oppose but I agree with Icewhiz about the need to first establish that a source has specific reliability issues before going for a general RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment above: These RFCs are useful to get a very rough barometer for how a source is seen by the community and how specific questions about it are likely to be evaluated. Unless an RFC is worded as an outright ban (which is very rare, and generally invoked as a last resort), I don't think any outcome is taken to mean "always reliable, can never be questioned" or "always unreliable, remove on sight"; rather, they provide editors with a quick reference point so they know where they're starting from and the mood of the room if they want to argue for or against using a particular source in a particular context. Additionally, while it's accurate to say that we should judge each case individually, the reality is that we can't reliably get enough people to weigh in on each of them to ensure consistent assessment of sources; going entirely case-by-case with no broader RFCs would result in inconsistent and sometimes random responses based on who happened to weigh in. In particular, one of the requirements of WP:RS is that a source have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", often the most difficult thing to assess - and one that usually doesn't vary much from use to use (or, if it does, it does so in a consistent expected way that can be noted during the RFC.) These RFCs can't predict or account for all possible uses of a source, but they're absolutely useful in terms of giving us a consistent, reasonably well-grounded definition of "does this source, on the whole, have the baseline reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires?" --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that a source may have a “baseline reputation for fact checking and accuracy” in one area, and not have one in another area. This was pointed out in the several Daily Mail RFCs... the DM is accurate when reporting on sports... not when reporting on politics and celebrities. This is why I am not a fan of these RFCs. They don’t examine context. Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So, several things. First, and most importantly, the Daily Mail RFC was one of those "last resort" things I mentioned - it's different from most of the RFCs we use here. Because a few people kept trying to use the Daily Mail as if it were a top-tier New York Times-quality source despite a very clear informal consensus that it was generally not reliable (and even though it kept coming back to WP:RSN and getting basically laughed off the page), we took the unusual step of formalizing that consensus into a general banned-by-default RFC. Those are and should be extremely rare, reserved only for when people keep insisting on trying to use a source in clearly unworkable ways over and over (ie. when a source both rarely passes WP:RS and is extremely popular for controversial topics where it clearly fails WP:RS.) It wasn't a gauge-the-general-room-temperature-for-the-Daily-Mail RFC, it was a we're-at-wits-end-and-need-this-to-stop RFC. Those are a separate thing, but I think they're justifiable occasionally; even in sports, I don't feel there much we would want in Wikipedia uniquely sourceable to the Daily Mail that can't be found elsewhere. But for the more common sorts of "what does the community think of X?" RFCs, things like this can be noted in the RFC, if it's true. We're not limited to binary yes / no options - the purpose of those RFCs is to collect a general measure of the community's consensus on a source in one place; if you look at the RFCs above, they're generally cautiously worded and lead to fairly cautiously worded entries in WP:RSP to provide guidance to editors, not strict bans or the like. Also, you are more likely to have someone contribute who knows those details in a large month-long RFC with a lot of people contributing than to have it come up in a tiny brief discussion with only a few people - what makes you think that if you come here saying "I want to use the Daily Mail as a source for Joe Sportsman", you'll get anything but "hahaha the Daily Mail? No." from the vast majority of responses? In this sense the RFCs are useful because they're more likely to turn up someone who says "wait, source X is actually usable in situation Y!", which (if they convince people in the RFC) can then be noted down on WP:RSP as something that came up and will then be available to editors who wouldn't otherwise have known it (and may not have discovered it, if they just poked WP:RSN and got a response from a handful of random people for their exact issue, which seems to be what the support voters here want us to go back to.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is what is says on the box: an RfC about general reliability. ANY website is reliable for the material it says about itself, but we try not to use / should be very careful with the use of those (primary) sources in the first place. It is a good thing that we establish as a community that a certain source is generally reliable, sometimes/often reliable or generally unreliable. The ones that the community decides that they are generally unreliable should be removed for non-primary sources, and the use as primary source should be scrutinized and may need removal. The use of such unreliable sources should be strongly discouraged and sometimes plainly be made 'impossible' (i.e. only be possible after a consensus discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
    • A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
    • A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
    • The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • At least in as much as it applies, I have long said that we should not be having RfCs or even dedicated threads purely for the purpose of listing a source (one way or the other) on WP:RSPS. See also Goodhart's law. GMGtalk 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support strongly. If someone cares about looking into a sources reliability and answering questions about it they can go here. RfCs for sources which have not been brought here before just bludgeon the process and waste everybody involved's times. Sources should only be brought to RfC if there was no consensus or the consensus was not wide enough. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support While some publications are more reliable than others, it's not as if some sources are gospel truth while others are heretical. Above, we are spending time on the American Conservative which publishes conservative opinion. Policy is however clear. Opinion pieces are rarely reliable unless written by experts. What point is there in having an argument about what people think about these opinions? TFD (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The whole idea of a broad brush for a source is badly flawed. First every source varies in reliability. Second, reliability varies with respect to the text which supports it. Britney Spear's sister's book might be reliable as a cite for a "Britney's favorite color is.." statement, but not for a statement on particle physics. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WorkshopEdit

Some editors have suggested restrictions on when an RfC on the general reliability of a source would be appropriate, as well as changes to the commonly used 4-option RfC format. For more coordinated discussion, please list your suggestion in a new subheading under this "Workshop" section, so other editors can comment on them individually. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia's proposalEdit

I still oppose option 4 of the "commonly used" format. In my view an RfC on reliability is only appropriate if there has not been a discussion here which generated clear consensus, or if there has been discussion scattered around Wikipedia which needs centralising in an easily referable place. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Alsee's proposalEdit

  • Alternate proposal - define and restrict General Reliability RFCs to cases where they actually make sense:
    • A General Reliability RFC is useful for adding a source to the list of perennial sources.
    • A General Reliability RFC is only appropriate if there have been at least 3 previous RSN discussions on the same source, each linked in the General RFC. This establishes that there is a genuine purpose for a generalized discussion, and it ensures at least previous three disputed cases for examination as well as that previous ground work of research and analysis. A general RFC on a source no one ever heard of, which no one will ever bring up again, and with no substantial evidentiary basis, is a bad use of other people's time.
    • The instructions and documentation should prominently state that that the outcome of a General Reliability RFC does not resolve any open dispute about any particular usage at any particular article. RSN already lays out separate instructions and requirements for that. Alsee (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Something somethingEdit

You shouldn't open threads about a source unless there is a specific content dispute. You shouldn't open a thread about the universal reliability of a source unless there is a preponderance of threads dealing with specific content disputes where they have decided the source is unreliable. GMGtalk 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

bozhdynsky.comEdit

http://www.bozhdynsky.com/ Has been used at a number of article about cars [[41]], but appears to be just another website by someone who does not appear to be a noted expert in the field. So is this an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment that this may be someone's website with any lack of credentials for fact checking. My opinion is that this is not a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Found the same painter, I just assumed in could not be the same person.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I made the assumption based on this forum thread. — Newslinger talk 22:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Me and my website quoted as an expert in Alfa Romeo/Maserati/Ferrari/Lancia history:
citethisforme.com: "Your Bibliography: Bozhdynsky.com"
ateupwithmotor.com: "Yaroslave Bozhdynsky, “Interview with Enrico Fumia,” Bozhdynsky.com, 2012, www.bozhdynsky. com/cars/ interview-with-enrico-fumia/"
mlsclassiccars.dk: "Mere info kan findes på Yaroslav Bozhdynsky Bozhdynsky.com"
squadra916.com: "according to Yaroslav Bozhdynsky" "More invaluable information on standard and limited editions can be found on our member’s personal page Bozhdynsky.com."
ferrarichat.com: "This is a great resource, one that slipped past my radar previously. Thanks for the link!"
automotiveviews.com: "bozhdynsky.com/cars/maserati-shamal/"
sportsmaserati.com: "Not the answer to your question, but some data"
carstyling.ru: "www.bozhdynsky.com"
maseratichat.nl: "Een lijst met 124 typen Maserati op deze site: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/tipos/maserati-tipos/"
petrolicious.com: "bozhdynsky.com"
wykop.pl: "http://www.bozhdynsky.com/lancia-thema-8-32-sw/"
alfetta.pl: "miała być lancią deltą )za www. bozhdynsky. com!"
clubgtv916.com website copied partly from mine, see same photos
forum.alfaholicy.org: "Co do broszur słabo szukasz, pierwszy wynik z google, strona Bogdańskiego;"
autocar.dendronet.com: "electric heated seats » yaroslav bozhdynsky's personal website"
alfa-romeo-portal.com: "Hier findet man fast alles über die 916er, Motoren,Ölmenge,Farben,Sondermodelle usw !"
alfa916register.nl: "Weet niet of deze site al bekend is, kon het niet vinden met de zoekfunctie. Maar dat zegt niet veel ;) Staan wel interesante zaken op, o.a. produktieaantallen etc. "
ab.onliner.by: "Автору в помощь про данную версию авто: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/gtv-2-0-ts-ss-elegant-n-062/"
autogaleria.pl: "Mam fotele ze skórą poltrona frau (http://www.bozhdynsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/0252084674007.jpg)"
alfaklub.dk: "Næppe, ihvertfald iflg denne kilde: www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/colour-codes/"
italian-supercar.blogspot.com: "alfa_romeo__alfa_spider_2_0_edizione_elegant_2002_4_lgw, image source: www.bozhdynsky.com"
alfistas.es: "Info extraida de EPER y de http://www.bozhdynsky.com"
When GTV Conrero was sold on carandclassic.co.uk they linked to my website as an expert's website
forum.alfaholicy.org: "Dzięki wspaniałej stronie zrobionej przez Alfaholika z Łodzi Jarka Bożdyńskiego (tutaj daję link http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo...pider-history/ )"
forums.ov9.co.uk link to: http://www.bozhdynsky.com/alfa-romeo-gtv-spider-history/timeline/
One of couple of comments so please be patient. YBSOne (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Second comment. Alfa 147, 156, 159, 166, GT production dates subpage. This page shows earliest found VINs, and their corresponding production dates, that can be verified by anyone using same tool as I used for its research, Fiat ePer. Some of the VINs were earlier sent to Centro Documentazione Alfa Romeo and confirmed by them also. YBSOne (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Third comment: Ferrari Tipos subpage. Information here is sourced from sites: Ferrari.com, barchetta.cc, RMSothebys.com, Bonhams.com, VIN plates showing engine/chassis type, books. It is correct, updated and verifiable. Same applies to other 'Tipos' subpages on Maserati, Alfa Romeo, Lancia.
  • Fifth comment: Alfa Romeo GTV and Spider Limited Editions. One of my great accomplishments as a historian. "This is the first and only place where You can find every limited edition discovered, researched and described.". All data needed to research every limited edtion was sourced from manufacturer via ePer or brochures and press releases.
  • Seventh comment: Engines. Information on engines was created by me, see my sandbox. Sourced from manufacturer's provided data as presented above.
  • Eighth comment: As a noted expert in the field, people contact me with interesting information like here. Owner of this prototype contacted me to help him research information about it.
  • Final comment: It's a shame this was so rushed maybe I would be able to prepare myself better. I would like my website to be judged as it was without the "personal website" tag as I feel it clouds the judgement a bit. It started out as one but is no longer the same. Yes I am an artist by profession but automotive historian by heart. I have researched many interesting new facts and will continue to do so. This website was a sort of a notepad for it. Right now its contents are only used when no better are available but I feel they are reliable and verifiable. YBSOne (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot about this. Praise from Centro Documentazione Alfa Romeo. YBSOne (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ybsone: (and before anyone wonders about WP:OUTING see YBSOne say it is his site in 2012) The fact that a number of forums and other enthusiast sites point to your site as a resource does not help much. The most credible site I saw on your list (petrolicious.com) only credited your site with photos. You are stating you are doing your own research for your site. If you are also using you site as a reference for your contributions to Wikipedia, it becomes indistinguishable from original research which I hope you know is a big no-no. In your third comment, you mention details for your website are sourced from reliable sources. Well, in that case, your citations on Wikipedia should be for those sites, not back to your personal website. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
What is seen as just a couple of forums is in fact a great deal of people that visit those forums from all-over the world and use the data I collected and analysed. I presented what I hastily found to counter the "not a subject-matter expert". I would also like to point out that I cannot be sure if I'm being quoted in paper publications. I do research history, I research facts that were previously unknown and source this research in hard data or interviews. Someone has to be the first to uncover a piece of history. And if I do that i'm blamed for original research and or for putting it on a personal website. Not a single piece of information on my website is a fake fact. There was one incident when manufacturer made a mistake and it was copied but I researched it and actually corrected them on it, wheather they changed it is another matter. Typology of cars is not used as a source on wikipedia, it was a proof to counter the "lack of credentials for fact checking" allegation. YBSOne (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Two users, at least, commented that I may not be an expert in the field. This person is selling his Alfa Romeo Spider 3.0 V6. And out of 7 billion people in the world wrote down my name and website "Mere info kan findes på Yaroslav Bozhdynsky Bozhdynsky.com" for more information on the subject, as he only added rudimentary. Why would he do that if in Your opinion I'm not a noted expert? Bear in mind I do not know this person, but he knows my website. YBSOne (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I fully understand the dilemma. I am speaking as one who believes the foremost experts on automobiles are in fact enthusiasts who concentrate on a few brands. There are enthusiasts who I would trust more for depth of knowledge on the history and variations of the Ford Mustang than I would trust articles from Car and Driver or Road & Track, for example. On the other hand, it is incongruent with Wikipedia policies. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I dont think thare is any original research on my website. If I did any original research in my work I kept it to be published in future book. YBSOne (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
And when you book is published others can add information from it. But at this time it is OR because it is research you did and then published yourself. wp:v is a policy that comes into play here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment against original research. An example limited edition [Motus GTV]. Its specifications, available colours, engines etc. were sourced from manufacturer's provided press releases, brochures, optoins documents. And it is not an original research. Will You find other sites with this information? No, or at least not original, there are copies. This part: "Number made: ." would be an original research but is not published and is reserved for paper publication. YBSOne (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ybsone: In that case you should probably be citing the manufacturer's press releases and brochures on Wikipedia... —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Depends upon who it is that deems it reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Surely a member of automotive community and a particular make/model enthusiast. And in that community I am seen as a noted expert in the field. As it was pointed out at the begining it is an important requirement. YBSOne (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
http://www.squadra916.com/ is a fan site, nor is there any information about how writes for it. So for all we know you added it yourself (not that I can see were it cites you , rather then just repeats facts they might have got form the same source you did).Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
We all know this started at AN/I. In the meantime please revert the RS tags until this RS/N is over. Thank You for Your support. YBSOne (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, self published by an author no one has ever heard of, not an expert, just one more random opinion on the web Bacondrum (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for virtually every possible use. It's a self-published site by a hobbyist, and all of the evidence provided only shows it is frequently cited by other self-published hobbyists. It should be replaced by citations to reliable sources (including primary sources) where possible, and removed otherwise. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Spam blacklist proposal for Google DriveEdit

You are invited to comment on a proposal to add Google Drive to the spam blacklist. The discussion is at this section on the talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)