Open main menu
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 this noticeboard & archives

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

Contents

Is Designers & Dragons a RS for: (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs?Edit

Recently the question arose as to whether or not Designers & Dragons [1], a book on fantasy role-play games, is a WP:RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) WP:BLPs.

  • Publisher: The book's publisher is Evil Hat, a fantasy game and t-shirt company located somewhere in the United States (no physical address is given on its website and I was unable to locate it via a reverse EIN search either). [2]
  • Author: The book's author is Shannon Applecline. A bio purporting to be that of Applecline is here: [3].
  • Reception: The book has been cited in about two-dozen master's degree theses and undergraduate term papers. [4] A check of JSTOR and Google News finds no scholarly journals or mainstream media which have reviewed it. It is cited once each in Empire of Imagination: Gary Gygax and the Birth of Dungeons & Dragons from Bloomsbury and Dragons in the Stacks: A Teen Librarian's GUide to Tabletop Role-Playing from ABC-CLIO.

Is this source RS for (a) games and game companies, (b) BLPs? Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


  • Undecided on "A", No on "B" - I'm undecided leaning towards "RS" for games and game companies. However, I don't believe this could surmount the high threshold required to source a BLP. Neither the publisher nor author have any non-fiction credits other than this book and the author has no known educational credentials, or wider journalistic / academic reputation, that would qualify him to conduct original historical or biographical research. I have been unable to find any physical presence for the publisher by which it could be held legally responsible for what it publishes, as it appears not to disclose its physical address and even a reverse EIN search turns up blank. With the exception of undergraduate papers and master theses (which are not, themselves, RS) instances of the book being cited by reliable sources are light and there's no examples of it being used to cite a biographical statement in a RS (only product descriptions). Chetsford (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Given the lack of information on the publisher, and low profile of the author, I would say the book is not a reliable source, period. - Donald Albury 02:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with Donald Albury, for the reasons stated. Not reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Being published by a game company I would suspect it fails the editorial control/reputation for fact checking and accuracy criteria. On the other hand several volumes have been published so that is enough to establish a reputation. On yet another hand, I see no evidence of other reliable sources making use of it, which is really the only proxy we have for its reputation and acceptance. Based on that I do not think it could be considered a reliable source for anything until we can get a better handle on its editorial control and fact checking. Jbh Talk 05:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Designers & Dragons is cited by many/all of the authoritative scholarly sources in the field (as WP:SECONDARY reminds us to check whether "the source has entered mainstream academic discourse"). Most recently, Designers & Dragons is cited extensively and with evident approbation in Role-Playing Game Studies: Transmedia Foundations, the new academic text, published by Routledge, which for now is the leading text in the field. I can produce earlier citations of Designers & Dragons, but SCHOLARSHIP seems to be easily met by its role in unquestionably reliable sources, and SCHOKARSHIP is, as I understand it, the "gold standard for both BIO and CORP sources. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
            • What you say appears to be incorrect. It is listed in several chapter's bibliographies and as 'Further reading' but I see nothing directly cited to the work. Without that it is impossible to know what it was used for. So, yes, it was consulted but I see no indication in that work that it was used for historical information about gaming companies which is the matter at hand here.
              This paper used it for some historical information on D&D, TSR. Jbh Talk 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
              • The above statement appears to be misleading. The Routledge text employs chapter bibliographies rather than individual citations, based on its intended use in universities. Most of the chapter references are either primary sources or academic/theoretical sources. The repeated references to Designers & Dragons in the bibliographies give it pride of place as a secondary source in the field, as having "entered mainstream scholarly discourse". Newimpartial (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
                • That is an … erm … interesting … source analysis. I will however disagree. We can not infer anything other than several authors looked at the work. In particular there is no indication that the work was used for the history of game companies, which is what we are examining it for here, or is any way considered generally authoritative purpose by the academic community.
                  My concern is that the publisher has no history of academic, or even non-fiction, publishing. Therefore I do not accept, without evidence, that the editorial standards they have for publishing games are adequate, particularly in terms of fact checking and accuracy, for an authoritative "academic" work.
                  I just looked at the Amazon free sample of the work and it is no more than a narrative history. I see no citations for facts nor any indications that it is reliable beyond a single person's observations and musings. It is effectively an oral history – a good work but essentially a primary source. Jbh Talk 17:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes it is for A and B - and a note that the user who opposed has been trying to argue for mass deletion of pages that rely on it as a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Given it is published by a games company, I would say no. There are issues if primary source and even SPS here. OK maybe they might be OK for historical information, about people or products that have no connection to the company. But outside that I would say they are not interdependent enough to be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that each edition of Designers & Dragons is not RS for the publisher at the time, which is the one issue of independence. Also agreed that its relevance is for historical/factual information, not really for analysis.Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe it meets all three criteria. To clarify on the part of the publisher, there have been two editions of the book, published by two separate game publishers who I believe are fully independent from each other and are headquartered in different countries. The first edition of the book was published as a single volume in 2011 by British game company Mongoose Publishing. The second edition was greatly expanded and published in 2014 in four volumes by US game company Evil Hat Productions. The first edition consists of roughly 50-60 chapters, with each chapter consisting of a history of one game company that was known for producing role-playing games, including discussing the people who have been a part of that company, and games that the company is known for. The text is written as partial oral history and partial commentary on decisions made by the companies. The second edition expands on the information in the first edition by adding more than 20 additional chapters on other companies, and expanding on the information featured in most of the chapters from the first edition; most of the text is reproduced identically from the first edition. Shannon Appelcline himself has been a game designer/writer, and he currently runs RPGnet and publishes articles there - most of the information from the first edition of Designers & Dragons was and still is on RPGnet, written for fans of the website before Mongoose agreed to publish it as a book. I would say his design experience and research qualifies him as an expert in the field. The credits of the book list a few dozen industry professionals that he consulted for information to write the book with. Important individuals in the field are discussed in detail in the book, including in some cases talking somewhat about their earlier lives and schooling, personal lives, and careers before and after getting into the gaming field. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Appelcline does not cite his sources inline in the text, but at the end of the Mongoose edition, he provides a bibliography of sources "built from thousands of primary sources including interviews, design notes, reviews, news articles, press releases, catalogues, forum postings and other non-fiction articles. It was also built with the assistance of hundreds of readers, fact-checkers and scanners." He lists over 30 magazines and similar publications ("a solid collection of RPG magazines dating back through the ‘80s and ’90, before the age of the internet made it easy for publishers to get information out to fans"), more than a dozen non-fiction books about the industry ("Any number of RPG books was consulted, primarily for insight into that game or its publisher. The following non-fiction sources were also used. Secondary sources like the Role-Playing Bibles tended to be used for date confirmation and references to primary sources, not for analysis.") several web resources ("The web proved an invaluable resource, particularly for companies in existence from the late ‘90s onward [and] a few of the web sites that I visited multiple times over the course of the project") and he lists several dozen fact checkers, most of whom worked for one or more of the companies he wrote about ("Whenever I finished an article, I tried to get one or more people associated with the company in question to comment on it. In one or two cases where I did not have sufficient company feedback, I got some help from fans as well. These people helped to make this book considerably more accurate and informative thanks to both corrections and insight generously given. Some were kind enough to comment on multiple editions of these articles over the years."). BOZ (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Which means his assertions are untraceable and uncheckable. The reliability of the source then comes down to, in my opinion, the reputation of the publisher, which for reasons I have previously mentioned, is inadequate. The deficiencies of documentation and publisher could be offset if the author had a reputation for, or training in historiography. He does not.
There is no doubt the author put great time and effort into his work but, for the reasons I have stated, I do not believe it meets the Wikipedia's standards to be considered a reliable source for company histories or BLP. Jbh Talk 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see instructions at the top. What article and what material is this being used to reference? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Only in death does duty end, sorry. It's used quite extensively in BLPs so I can't provide an exhaustive list, however, here are a few examples:
  • M. Alexander Jurkat - used to cite entire article including professional licenses (attorney), bankruptcy, inspirations / favorite things, and employment history [5]
  • John Harshman - used to cite educational credentials and place of residence [6]
  • Fred Hicks - used to cite the entire article, including the BLP's employment history, employment status, favorite things, friendships, and inspirations. [7]
  • Andria Hayday - used to cite date the BLP's employer terminated them [8]
  • Jack Herman - used to cite most of article, including the BLP's legal disputes and details of his business contracts with other people [9]
  • Shane Lacy Hensley - used to cite most of article, including place of birth, childhood hobbies, and detailed employment history
  • Dale Henson - used to cite entire article [10]
Chetsford (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable for company histories nor for BLP per my arguments above. The publisher is not an established publisher of non-fiction works and therefore can not be assumed to have adequate editorial controls for fact checking and accuracy. What I have seen of the work (Amazon sample) it is written as an oral history and provides no backstop for facts presented beyond the assertion of its author. Jbh Talk 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable for both Each of the four volumes provides a Bibliography citing the sources used. Many of the sources are, in turn, other publications such as magazines. There is also a fifth volume entitled "Designers & Dragons The Platinum Appendix" that also lists all the references used. For me, the books meet the criteria of a reliable source. The books have been published and are available to purchase in hard copy form, and they're available and stocked in book stores. In addition, the author is identified and the publisher identified. The books have been cited in academic sources and has been acknowledged in lots of other sources as a comprehensive history. For example, The Oxonian Review which has an editorial board.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talkcontribs) 20:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC (UTC)
  • Reliable for Games/Companies, unsure for BLP Designers and Dragons is extremely heavily used and referenced inside the RPG industry and generally hailed as the pre-eminent source for RPG histories. Shannon Appelcline is regarded as the premier historian of RPGs. The first edition was published by Mongoose Publishing and the second edition multi volume set was published by Evil Hat. Note that the author does not work for either of those companies, it was just the means of publishing. The work is generally referenced (not as specifically and heavily as Wikipedia but all sources are listed), but as for many communities the outside oversight is minor as it is for every smaller subject area. Most company information is heavily cross referenced to people who worked for those companies and additional third party sources about the companies. As for BLP I'd be a little more unsure but considering the number of people interviewed for the work and since Shannon used most major players in the industry, I'd say it's as reliable a source for BLPs of the prominent people in the RPG industry as any, but I'm open to an argument against it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Addition I would also like to add that since it covers all aspects of the tabletop RPG industry, it should NOT be used for notability determination, just fact checking and claim supports like any other text on an industry. The fact that a game is included in it doesn't make that game/company notable as it goes into details on a lot of obscure RPGs. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Borderline, reliable for non-extraordinary claims about game companies but not for BLPs. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the guideline governing the type of source it purports to be, since the publisher is not academic we ascertain reliability by citation patterns. As discussed above, it is cited only in sources that are themselves marginal—theses and tiny start-up journals—with the exception of the Routledge collection, which is edited by an associate professor and a PhD in Media Studies. In this, it's cited only a half-dozen times, albeit usually for substantial points of fact, and chapter 4, Tabletop Role-Playing Games, names it as one of two sources on which "the historical arc traced here draws in large measure upon". Balancing the fact that this is only one publication (and mostly one chapter) with the fact that precious little has been published in this field, I would cautiously say that this source seems reliable for unsurprising claims about its field, but that it hasn't been vetted widely or frequently enough to rely on it for BLP information. FourViolas (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Based on the description from HighKing, I'd have to say it counts as a RS for all purposes. That said, if there is an extraordinary claim I'd want a second independent source (though I feel that way about nearly all sources, some things like Nature or the WSJ I'd accept as a single source for all but the most outrageous of claims). Hobit (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Marginal at best, not suitable for BLPs or for establishing notability. The first edition was published by a game company, the second via Kickstarter. This appears to be an "in-universe", hobbyist work -- slightly better than self-published. Okay to use for non-controversial details once notability of the subjects is established via other means, but I don't see evidence of fact-checking or accuracy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable for both I'm not seeing any evidence that the source is erroneous. We have numerous BLPs for people like footballers and pornstars which are supported by weak sources and, in general, we commonly use books and newspapers as sources even though these often contain errors and bias. All I'm seeing here is a case of prejudice against the field. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment it should be noted that the primary Wikiproject for RPGs, Wikiproject Dungeons & Dragons, has determined it to be a reliable secondary source for their purposes. Not sure what that says. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was added to the Resources list by User:JEB215 in 2015. The page was built by User:Drilnoth in 2008 using available sources at that time; Designers & Dragons and several other books were not written yet and so were added later. BOZ (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment on Notability A couple of editors have commented that Designers & Dragons may be an independent, reliable source for article content but not for WP:N. I believe this line of thinking reflects a misunderstanding about what WP Notability is: per policy, it is not supposed to be a measure of the importance of a topic, or of its encyclopaedicity (which is covered by WP:NOT), but simply a question of whether there are adequate sources to treat a topic; if there are not enough sources, it is not notable, but if there are enough sources, it is. (There may be some deletionists who disagree with this criterion, but the policy and guidelines are actually pretty clear). Of course, not all sources topics require their own articles, and some are best dealt with in sections of longer articles, but these are questions of encyclopaedicity rather than Notability.
So if Designers & Dragons is a reliable, independent source - which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it - then it is evidence of Notability based on the significance of the mention, same as any other RS. I do of course agree that no extraordinary claims should be based on the text in question, nor do I trust it's theoretical or analytical judgements very far, but it's factual accuracy is excellent. And the argument that boils down to "it covers so many games that none of them can be very important" simply runs contrary to what WP:N actually means; for example, the listing of very, very diagnoses in the DSM doesn't make any of them less Notable for WP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
which is certainly how the SCHOLARSHIP in the field treats it While I certainly understand the spirit of your perspective, I would dispute that there can be scholarship in a field that is not a scholarly field. This is not a comment on the value or import of role-playing games, however, I don't believe their design or manufacture is a scholarly field. Scholarship "within the field" might be a reasonable touchpoint for the academic disciplines, however, I don't see evidence that role-playing games is an academic discipline. This is not to say that any entertainment topic is un-scholarly. Film, for instance, is both a topic of entertainment and a topic of scholarship (the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals about film, a large number of university professorships studying film, and a general recognition of the viability of the field of film studies). However, I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Is that why you didn't include the new Routledge text in your "reception" section of the RSN notice: because of your OR decision that it was not in a scholarly field? You should inform Routledge, then, and you might want to tell the publishers of the game studies journals, as well. Newimpartial (talk)
the publishers of the game studies journals I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some so I could better acquaint myself and consider modifying my !vote appropriately? Chetsford (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not aware of any journals that are confined to RPGs, but the RPG form is certainly discussed within the burgeoning scholarship on game studies (or Ludology) in general. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you could share some of those journals then? Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The obvious specialty journal for you to start with would be http://analoggamestudies.org . Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I've checked SCOPUS and EBSCO and it doesn't appear to be indexed. Chetsford (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
That would explain why it didn't show up in the Google Scholar results. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
So this is not an indexed journal? To my original query of the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals did you have any examples of indexed journals? The question as to whether roleplaying games is an academic field comes down to several factors listed above, including are there scholarly journals? If there are, I'm hoping you can help us identify them. Keeping in mind that simply starting a website and calling it "journal" does not make it a scholarly journal in the spirit of WP:NJOURNAL. Chetsford (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Please don't move goalposts. I was answering your direct question, "I'm not familiar with any scholarly journals about RPGs. This may be a personal failure on my part; could you cite some...?" I was not answering your oblique reference to indexed film journals, nor was I offering an opinion on the specifics of any journal's editorial process. (I trust that WP editors can read websites and make their own decisions about editorial oversight.) RPGs are included in the overall field or ludology, specifically in the less lucrative part of that field dealing with "analog games". I have no interest in proceeding any further down this rabbit hole, none of which explains your non-inclusion of the Routledge text in your filing here at RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is roleplay gaming an academic discipline? Sorry, I assumed when I said "scholarly journals" it was evident, vis a vis my previous comment the latter evidenced through the presence of indexed journals, what it was I was looking for (i.e. not just any publication or website including the word "journal" in their name but scholarly journals). If I expressed myself imperfectly, I apologize. In any case, Analog Game Studies would objectively not meet our WP:NJOURNAL criteria since we have set-forth that "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices". Therefore, IMO, on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games, no or very few academics at accredited universities researching roleplaying games, no learned society dedicated to the topic of roleplaying games, and roleplaying games are not listed in the Classification of Instructional Programs [11] or the Joint Academic Coding System [12] I would maintain the position that roleplaying games are not an academic discipline. I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding BLP sourcing: I should have made it clearer above, but when Appelcline lists his "fact-checkers", these were not just random people who happened to work at the company. Many of the people written about in the book – not anywhere near all, but many – were among the 120-or-so fact-checkers listed. My understanding of how the material for the book came to be is that Appelcline would write an article about one company and the games and people associated with it by reading interviews, news articles, non-fiction books about the industry, magazine articles, websites, etc, and compile the information together based on that, and send the article to one or more people who were significant to that company in some way for feedback and to act as a fact-checker. Let's say he were writing about "Happy Fun Time Games" which was started by John Smith; he would send the article to Smith and I imagine he might get a response something like: "I actually started HFTG in my basement in 1985 while I was at Blah University in Colorado with my friend Jim Johnson who was working as a lawyer in Tennessee at the time. He left the company in 1994 to go back to BlahBlah Law school, so I hired Robert Thompson to take his place after he was let go from Goofy Games, and he left in 2002 to go into photography in Georgia. Johnson sued us and won for licensing rights in 2003. I took time off from the company from 2004-2006 to play golf, and then I came back. Other than that, it looks like you got everything right, so great work!" He would then publish the article online, and after a while there were a few dozen such articles online, so Mongoose agreed to publish these articles as a book, and the editor in the credits is Charlotte Law, and that is how Designers & Dragons came to be. The question then is, since we have people approving of what was written about them and about people they know, does that make the source more or less reliable? I suppose some people will argue that no one knows you and your friends better than yourself, while other people will say that giving input that way just gives people the opportunity to lie about themselves and people they know, so me asking this may or may not put us closer to a consensus. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    This thread is likely to be closed in the near future, and it may be difficult to determine the consensus here as so many differing opinions have been offerred. Wikipedia policy is determined partly by consensus discussion of what should and should not happen, and partly by practice of what does happen. Chetsford has put a lot of effort into arguing that while Designers & Dragons could possibly be used as a reliable source under the right circumstances, that a subject's inclusion in this book should not be taken as an indicator of notability, and he even tried for some reason to have it documented as such and as one of the perennial source discussions despite this being the first and only discussion of the source on a noticeboard that I am aware of. So as far as documenting practice, this noticeboard discussion came out of Chetsford nominating almost 20 tabletop gaming-related (mostly RPG, but not all) articles for AFD. Of those, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantasy Imperium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen and the Art of Mayhem, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Cross (role-playing game) have been closed as delete, and as a few similar articles are also likely to be – but please note that none of them were sourced to Designers & Dragons (or sourced at all, for that matter). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Roleplaying Game and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Abranson were both sourced to Designers & Dragons, and both were closed as Keep. Five more pending AFDs are also on articles sourced to Designers & Dragons, and from a look at each of them it seems likely to me at this point that they will all close as either Keep or Merge. Merge is not Delete, and does allow for some of the sourced content to be moved to another article. Since policy on Wikipedia reflects practice in part, I am urging whoever closes this discussion to not explicitly rule that Designers & Dragons does not contribute to notability. If you cannot find that it in fact does contribute to notability, then please leave it as an open question for now. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above that there is no consensus it is RS, nor is there a consensus it is not insofar as BLPs are concerned. I would say there is probably a consensus it is RS for non-biographical facts. Just in point of clarification of my nominations regarding RPGs, I've nominated 19, of which 4 have been deleted, 4 kept, 2 merged, and 9 are either open or have had to be relisted. I'm not sure which involved Designers & Dragons. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I explained here already regarding which of your AFDs involved Designers & Dragons as a source, but if my explanation was not clear – three were closed as Keep, one as Merge, and three remain to be closed but are unlikely to be closed as delete unless there is a last-minute push in that direction. That is not enough evidence on its own to say that the book definitely does contribute to notability, but my point here is that it does show some practice-based evidence that it may contribute to notability, thus my request to the closer that the book should not be ruled as clearly a non-contributor to notability, and thus leaving that an open question at worst. The majority of your recent game-related AFDs do not involve this source, so I was not discussing them here, as this discussion is about just one source, and not about your success rate which you keep touting as some important metric. But since you brought it up, on your chart, lets just say that four of the seven "red" unsuccessful nomination results on the current version of the chart involved Designers & Dragons as a source, while none of the "green" successful nomination results involved said book as a source. So, let's just say that your success rate when it comes to articles sourced by this book is… underwhelming at best. BOZ (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it appears we agree that there is a consensus it's fine for articles about games and game companies and no consensus as to whether it is or is not RS for BLPs. Since the Keep/Delete decision in each AfD was not based solely on the status of Designers & Dragons but rather on an holistic evaluation of all the sources in the article, as well as arguments for the subject's inherent notability on the basis of various awards, this centralized discussion in which Designers & Dragons is the exclusive subject of analysis is probably a better judge of the community's opinion. In any case, I think discussions at RSN usually just fade away 9 times out of 10 rather than being formally closed. Best - Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just adding that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillfolk was closed as Keep as well, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Britannica as merge. The three remaining AFDs involving Designers & Dragons as a source have been relisted, and as noted above, at this time look more likely to be Keep or Merge rather than delete. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
    Just adding for the record that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubicle 7 was closed as No consensus (delete 3; keep 10). BOZ (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    Likewise, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic McDowall-Thomas was closed as no consensus. The last AFD in question was relisted for a second time earlier this week, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy, with most respondents split between either Keep or Merge/redirect, and only the nominator and one other arguing to delete. So, to reiterate, with all the AFD results noted above going "merge" at worst, and most as keep or no consensus (aka, default keep), I will again dispute the notion that the community should consider Designers & Dragons to be not a RS or contribute to notability. It was not the only source in question on those articles, so it alone does not determine notability, but the failure to get a single delete result among the 7 articles that used this source tell me that the community does consider it enough of a RS that contributes to notability (along with other sources) that consensus could not be found to delete any of those 7 articles. BOZ (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D6 Fantasy was finally closed today as Keep. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Most certainly reliable. No idea why this is not considered a reliable source. It is every bit as reliable as any other source compiled by a specialist historian of a subject. The fact its publisher is a games company is neither here nor there. Inclusion in it does not make a game, product, company or individual inherently notable, of course, but as a source for facts on the tabletop RPG industry it is certainly a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Appears Reliable. I found this source popping up in some scholarly ghits and I've found no evidence of negative claims against it, so, at least for now, I have no reason to doubt its general reliability. Certainly it's an appropriate source for WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes for A and B. First referring to Evil Hat as "T-shirt company" is akin to calling Microsoft a "company that sells mice and keyboards". It is an attempt to weaken the status of a publisher. No one that has any familiarity with Evil Hat would call them a T-Shirt company. They sell books and games and happen to have branded t-shirts. Secondly, the scholarship of these books (there are now five) rests in the hands of the author, Shannon Appelcline who is also the editor-in-chief of RPGnet and historian for DriveThruRPG/RPGNow. While he has no page himself he is mentioned in over 900 Wikipedia pages. Third. The book was originally published by Mongoose Publishing and is based on his articles at RPGNet. Web Warlock (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes for both, with the caveat that it's a book about the history of RPGs, not about people's biographies outside RPGs. It's a respected series in multiple volumes. It's a genre piece, but so is, say, a book on history of Physics. BOZ seems to know quite a bit about it. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Closure requested at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the discussion is closed. (I am adding this because discussions frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.)

    Cunard (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Prelim tallyEdit

Since the above discussion is becoming more detailed than anticipated, for ease of overview (but not to replace or substitute for the above discussion as per WP:NOTAVOTE), I have created the following summary table of the position of individual editors as a GF attempt to represent an interpretation of their opinions. Please feel free to edit or modify it directly if I have misrepresented you (edit - or remove yourself entirely if you do not want your opinion presented in summary format or to add yourself if you're not represented but contributed above). Chetsford (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor Reliable for Games
or Game Companies?
Reliable for BLPs?
Chetsford Maybe No
Jbhunley No No
Cullen328 No No
Donald Albury No No
BOZ Yes Yes
Simonm223 Yes
(non-extraordinary claims)
Yes
Newimpartial Yes Yes
HighKing Yes Yes
Slatersteven No
(except on rare occasions)
No
(except on rare occasions)
Canterbury Tail Yes
(facts but not notability)
Maybe
FourViolas Yes
(non-extraordinary claims)
No
Hobit Yes Yes
K.e.coffman Maybe
(facts but not notability)
No
Andrew Davidson Yes Yes
Necrothesp Yes Yes
Reyk Maybe
(non-controversial facts, but not notability)
No
Praemonitus Yes Yes
Webwarlock Yes Yes
GRuban Yes Yes
Thanks - you might want to put a "ping" next to each of their names or something to give them a chance to make sure they agree with your interpretation. BOZ (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Excellent point - done. Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
That's fine but I should note that I agree with FourViolas' qualification that it be used mostly for non-extraordinary claims. Simonm223 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I did in fact say no, I just accepted there might be rare occasions when it might have not been "not RS". But these do not outweigh my overall concerns about its neutrality and independence.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven - I apologize and have amended accordingly. If I've still got it wrong, please feel free to edit it as you see fit. Sorry again. Chetsford (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Krikey! Unreliable for anything, and hell no for BLPs. btw writing something about a company and sending it to a company founder, and taking his or her recollections as a "fact check" is about as amateur hour as it gets; doing that is called "PR' not "journalism" much less scholarly research. I imagine there will be decent scholarship done on this stuff one day. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a critical review of a portion of this work which may be found here http://boggswood.blogspot.com/2011/11/designers-and-dragons-only-4995.html In my opinion the work is not wholly reliable, though certain sections dealing with later game development may be. DHBoggs (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC) DHBoggs

  • "...on the basis of there being no scholarly journals on role-playing games..." The content is there, of course, with Games and Culture and Simulation & Gaming both publishing decent amounts of info on RPG's—and if anyone's curious what a true academic publication about RPG's looks like—you can bypass Designers and Dragons and look straight to Dungeons, Dragons and Digital Denizens (doi:10.5040/9781628927900)  spintendo  16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • comment just a note that, in addition to contributing to the wrong section of the noticeboard, none of the last three comments actually contribute anything to the policy-based determination of whether Designers & Dragons is a RS, which is to be based on the editorial oversight of its various publications and not on whether its claims correspond to those documented elsewhere. WEIGHT should be given to its citation in the developing scholarly literature on RPGs, though it is not of course a scholarly work so [;[WP: SCHOLARSHIP]] does not apply.

Anyway, this whole thing should probably have been closed "no consensus" last week... Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

DHBoggs, it seems likely that you found your way to this RSN discussion after I started this other thread regarding your addition of blogs and forums posts as citations for an article. I see that you posted a review of the book on your blog; per your comments here and on your user page you have an interest in archaeology and anthropology, but can you state what qualifications you have as a book reviewer, by which you can assert that your WP:SPS review of a 7-page portion of the book has any real relevance here? I am concerned about your ability to judge what sources are and are not reliable. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: BreitbartEdit

Should Breitbart be deprecated as a source in the same was as WP:DAILYMAIL and other partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy? Fact checkers find large numbers of Breitbart stories to be misleading, false or both and the site admits to pushing fake news.[13] Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinions (Breitbart)Edit

  • Support as nominator. We have something over 2,500 links to Breitbart, many of them as sources in articles. I think that Breitbart is not a reliable source. Sometimes it's being used as a source for what Breitbart says, in which case it is not independent. It's my view that we should not source anything to Breitbart other than strictly factual and uncontroversial facts about Breitbart on the articles related to Breitbart and its people - if a claim is not covered in more reliable sources then it's not significant and probably WP:UNDUE, if it is, we should use them instead. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Every second spent removing content which can only be sourced to Breitbart is well spent. Do not allow using Breitbart for RSOPINION. (see my comment in the Discussion section)wumbolo ^^^ 12:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mixed - Obviously biased, but quite reliable for attributed statements of opinion (viewpoint) - less reliable for statements of unattributed statements of fact. Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The site does not admit to promoting fake news (the link provided - [14] - has this in the title, but the contents are editorial discretion of what not to cover). Breitbart is indeed highly biased, and certainly is questionable, however despite some factual errors in reporting caught by fact checkers (which have caught more mainstream outlets as well) - they generally do have editorial controls and do not promote fake news. They are certainly fine for sourcing attributed opinions of their writers (who may be notable/due is some limited cases). They are definitely rank low on the reliability scale, but they are not the Daily Mail.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The site does not admit to promoting fake news Seriously? You're using THAT as a criteria? --Calton | Talk 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are lots of news sites that have biases, we accept them using criteria like whether they're a "well-established news outlet", and context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Biases aren't the issue here. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can say they're not. But the supposed sources for e.g. that Breitbart admits to faking news happen not to show that's what Breitbart said, only that if their bias is the other way then they'll derive that. Incidentally among the complaints from surprised editors about the Daily Mail close, one of the closers said: 'I think the biggest issue would be that the RfC was not listed on "Centralized discussions".' Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can say they're not. Of course. And they're saying that BECAUSE BIAS ISN'T THE ISSUE. Seriously, have you read a single word written here? --Calton | Talk 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope that a closer will ignore Calton's shouting and look at the word "partisan" in the RfC introduction, as well as editors condemning Breitbart as right-wing, propaganda, etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope that any closer will ignore your bad-faith attempt to assign motives despite people's plain statements. And it's in boldface in the apparently vain hope that you would actually read the words written instead of pretending not to. --Calton | Talk 16:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Only use Brietbart as a source for attributed opinions, never for claims of fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support being biased is not the issue (addendum: but skewing coverage for political purposes is part of it), but not fact checking is. for any facts of import there should be other sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    Replying to the addendum, how is skewing coverage for political purposes a part of fact checking problems? The New York Times is no stranger to skewing coverage for political purposes, but it's still one of the best fact checking organizations we have (if not the best). wumbolo ^^^ 14:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    Funny that you're linking to a duly bylined opinion piece and calling it "skewed coverage by NYT." These are views of the writer NOT New York Times. No news media outlet is perfect, but you should first understand there's a whole host of differences between a newspaper, its staff and opinion writers. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Breitbart is complete and utter trash. It can not be trusted for statements of fact, and should be given as much weight as random wordpress blogs and pure fake news websites. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Longstanding reputation for publishing utter falsehoods, fabrications and blatant distortions about living people it opposes, and having no meaningful fact-checking structure in place whatsoever. The Reliable sources guideline specifically states: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Breitbart has the opposite of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
While an article needs to be based on sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, we have more leeway when supporting specific statements within an article. Biased sources and sources with poor fact checking reputations can be used as a PRIMARY source for supporting statements of opinion and viewpoint. We have to attribute such statements so the reader understands that such statements ARE opinion (and not accepted fact), but the have their place. Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart can't be used as a primary source, because they have on at least one occasion fabricated a byline, so we can't know where a quote originated. (see my comment in the Discussion below) wumbolo ^^^ 16:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure we do... the quote originated with Breitbart itself. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
There is one instance (known) of a fabricated byline - and they retracted it hours later saying it was an internal joke that slipped past editorial controls... Which actually demonstrates they do retract mistakes. (Not to mention multiple other RSes that run April 1st gags... Or fabricated items). Icewhiz (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per talk page discussion here: Talk:Everipedia#Breitbart is not an RS 344917661X (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support One of the more notorious peddlers of fake news.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • support and thank you. There is nothing at that site that is useful for generating content aimed to summarize accepted knowledge. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The sooner the better! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mostly Support Breitbart is not a reliable source for most topics. However I would grant a rare exception in cases where they are talking about themselves. In such circumstances I think it could be cited provided it's done in a manner that does not suggest in wiki-voice that we are affirming the veracity of whatever they are claiming. In other words whatever claim of fact is being presented would be worded in a manner that leaves it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. But in general I would prefer we stayed away from them altogether. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
After digging into this a little more, I think we can just say no to Breitbart. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Breitbart has a long history of producing hoaxes and disinformation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - At issue is a couple things, I think. One is whether Breitbart should be considered a reliable source for statements of fact, generally speaking. The answer to that is clearly no. The other question is the extent to which Breitbart would bring enough WP:WEIGHT to include attributed opinions expressed therein. Again I would say no, but only generally. For this latter kind of usage, I think weight would be determined by coverage of those opinions in other sources, in which case it's probably better to just cite those other sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: makes sense & looks like it's heading to a "snow" support. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Breitbart seems atually worse than the Daily Mail to me--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - among the worst of the fake news spewers. The only time we should ever link to them is to provide references for things said on their website in articles about this site itself or its contributors. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a blanket ban, but should be 100% clear that is only is for meeting RSOPINION and not any RS for facts. While Breitbart may have little reliability in fact-based reporting, they still publish opinions without any apparent problems as we'd have with Daily Mail. So we shouldn't be treating it as a fully DM-style ban but strictly that it should only be used for opinions of its authors under RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 04:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the same reason as the Daily Mail. If you cant distinguish fake from real, its out as a RS. It might be OK to cite as an RSOPINION source when the author is a source worth quoting, or when they are talking about themselves; so oppose a blanket ban. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - no exceptions Its a rare occurrence when a trash source like Breibart picks up on something notable, which is not covered elsewhere by a mainstream source. Even sourced material on the actual subject of Breibart should only be considered noteworthy if reported elsewhere. Edaham (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The oppose arguments given here (only 2 of the 3 opposes actually gave a cogent argument) are entirely unconvincing and simply melt in the face of the numerous lies Breitbart has been caught publishing. We forgive mistakes, even when they arise out of a source's bias. But Breitbart full on lies. That's just not something we can work with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - far right wing propaganda, not news. Reyk YO! 07:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I would agree that Breitbart is more propaganda than news... but as a primary source for statements of what the viewpoint of the right wing is (what it thinks and says on political issues), it is appropriate and reliable. That appropriate use may only apply in limited situations, but they still exists. Hell, there are even situations when it is appropriate to cite Mein Kamph, and Breitbart is far more “mainstream” than Mein Kamph is. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Blueboar I have to contest your phrasing, "what the viewpoint of the right wing is "... Breitbart has shifting agendas and I don't know if has represented any one consistent viewpoint. It seems to be more a chaos agent than anyone's voice. And i don't know exactly what you mean by "right wing" but there are some on the right who call it the trash that it is.... Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
But broadly, most RSes call Breitbart "right wing". It may not represent the part of the right that are more centralist (or that were probably centralist before the center shifted left over the last few years) hence those opinion pieces about it; that's also a question of how far right that these RSes put it (some calling it "far right") But more often than not, if an RS is documenting some reaction that they need to find a right-wing source for it, Breitbart seems to be the go-to if they can't find what they want from Fox. (Mind you, this CNN suggests a number of other reasons). --Masem (t) 13:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Recognized as generally unreliable, for divisive propaganda and instances of fabricated information. Also easy to find reliable sources about it. —PaleoNeonate – 12:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Given their track record, I'm not even sure we can use them for statements about themselves. And not even within shouting distance of reliable or even truthful. --Calton | Talk 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support even as a source of opinion, unless it is a response to something about them. As it stands, we have to keep getting into discussions with editors that think it’s RS. O3000 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - This "source" is already de facto banned for almost every purpose because of their poor reputation. Why not make it official?- MrX 🖋 20:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Breitbart has far too much history of fabrication, and of attempting to create news from non-issues. Let's not link to it at all here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support subject to the standards exceptions for sourcing non-controversial things about itself (WP:SELFPUB) and as a source for opinions of those who write opinion pieces for it (WP:PRIMARY). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support generally unreliable like most agenda driven news sources. --regentspark (comment) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support propaganda, not news. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support or rather "Does anybody think it's usable as a source to begin with?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Because of well-covered issues with fact-checking. On the issue primary sourcing: as others have noted, even using Breitbart as a primary source probably raises due weight issues. It's worth noting that the site, at least as of late last year, had an article tag for "black crime". That is indicative of a pattern of sensationalism and racist panic-mongering that renders it highly suspect even as a primary source. It's 2018 and the media environment is pretty diverse. If Breitbart is the only source saying something, it suggests that a lot of other sources have seen it and decided that is outrageous or unfounded. Nblund talk 01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Support source of propaganda & fake news.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It absolutely should not be used, due to its reputation of poor fact checking (if not creating outright falsehoods) and sensationalism/propagandism. I don't think it's really accepted as a source anyway, but wouldn't hurt to make it official. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support banning Breitbart and anyone who tries to use it as a source. This should have been done at the same time as the Daily Mail ban. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: it is well established that Breitbart is not a reliable source, except as a primary source for statements about what Breitbart said and the like. I'm glad we're finally having an RFC to establish clear consensus. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, for the reasons the reasons Guy mentions. -sche (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I did not !vote in the Daily Mail RfC, but if I had, I would have opposed its ban as well. The basic point is simple, and laid out in WP:RSCONTEXT: "context matters". Breitbart is very much in the style of a tabloid (like The Daily Mail). Its use is already discouraged on Wikipedia, because anyone with half a brain knows that tabloids engage in sensationalism (this is different from deliberately lying). This kind of wholesale ban is not necessary, because this informal method is sufficient, and a formal ban would be bad. I'll give two instances of how the Daily Mail ban was bad, just based on my own experience.

    The first case is on the page George Galloway. The page is under full-protection; administrator John removed a Daily Mail reference with the edit summary WP:DAILYMAIL. The text in question referred to Galloway's interview with Saddam Hussein. During that interview, by Galloway's account, Hussein offered Galloway some Quality Street chocolate, as a small point emphasizing Hussein's (and Iraq's) supposed Anglophile nature. As far as I can see, absolutely nobody doubts that Galloway did actually meet with Hussein, and nobody thinks that Galloway made up the anecdote (you can find a ton of secondary coverage of this anecdote). Yet, this admin felt free (through full protection) to wholesale remove the only published primary text of the interview, as well as the anecdote, simply because it was published in The Daily Mail. I don't necessarily blame the admin here: I blame the Daily Mail RfC.

    Next is Charlie Gard case, where SlimVirgin used a quote from the Daily Mail to flesh out a certain aspect of the case. My reasoning as to why she was right to do so is given here (ignore the side-drama about COI). The point is, again, that context matters for reliability. Absolutely nobody claimed that the Daily Mail had simply made up something (which would be stupid of them to do, given that it's public record and several other outlets reported it as well). The use of the Daily Mail was because tabloids are naturally more interested in this kind of stuff, and so go into more detail. In this case, the Mail (and the The Sun) published a longer quote (which was abbreviated in the other sources). But the proscription against The Daily Mail hobbled discussion, because people took a categorical stand that it is never "reliable".

    As I see it, this kind of formal ban on Breitbart has no upside, and only downside. And the Daily Mail precedent is terrible. Kingsindian   03:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per Kingsindian above, and thanks for the ping. The existing ban on the Daily Mail is needed to protect our readers from well-meaning editors who misunderstand sources. The rationale for the ban, "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication" makes it unusable, and I think this applies here as well. --John (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per WP:RSCONTEXT in complete agreement with Kingsindian. With the only additional comments that when a statement is supported by secondary RS the use of a "banned" or less reliable source to provide further background information to a user (should they choose to read sources) does provide more context to the user themselves. I support the consensus that Breitbart is not generally (almost never) a RS. However, I strongly oppose the idea of banning the source from the encyclopedia entirely no matter the context even when used in conjunction with other sources to support a well attributed statement, as has been done with the Daily Mail. Additionally, there are times when a cited source such as Breitbart with in text attribution has been used to help convey more "sides" of a story and avoid the appearance of POV and to cover material directly related to Breitbart, as Guy has said. A ban on the use of Breitbart (or other sources) as a source may ultimately lead to the deletion of such content. Endercase (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    A ban on the use of Breitbart (or other sources) as a source may ultimately lead to the deletion of such content. That's the point :-) wumbolo ^^^ 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    The use of Breitbart as source while not adding any sort of credibility for the average user does at least add some level of notability. The carte blanche banning of its use as a source is ill thought out in this editors opinion. Not to mention it would directly damage Wikipedia's reputation as a impartial source of information. While evaluating the use of the source in context allows for removal of untrue or poorly cited information without the image of "Like many other online sources Wikipedia is banning Right Wing information" that will no doubt follow the closure of this !vote due to SNOW. While the ultimate removal of properly attributed information that would follow decreases our usefulness as a source of information. Additionally, the removal a of a Breitbart citation from an otherwise well cited and supported statement decreases the fullness of conversation Wikipedia is known for and ultimately reduces the size of our consensus. The banning of editors who refuse to comply with such a reduction will of course follow that. You must think this kind of thing though fully and not let the ease of "just banning it" lure us into an ultimately poor decision. Context must be evaluated and removing information doesn't generally improve our usefulness as an encyclopedia even if it may improve our efficiency. Endercase (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    (insert my usual rant about NOT#NEWS and Recentism here), but this is my concern too. If we're covering controversies as they happen, our goal is to document the controversy, and outside of Fox News, Brietbart tends to be the only other authoritative source on extreme partisan issues. This is not to say that their authority is necessary "reliable", only that if we need to know what the right are saying, Brietbart is the voice to use under RSOPINION. This is contrast to Daily Mail which is there to stir up the cesspool. Of course, if we were not covering controversies in so much detail as they happen (as NOT#NEWS/Recentism tells us to avoid), we'd likely never have to worry about using Brietbart unless they are at the center of a controversy; most secondary/academic sources would properly document the controversy for us. --Masem (t) 17:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Deprecate is not ban. Deprecate raises a presumption of non-inclusion, and records the obvious fact that a source is assumed unreliable unless proven otherwise, rather than the opposite, which applies for mainstream sources with a reputation for fact-checking. We have far too much content sourced to Breitbart, given its reputation for publishing blatantly false material, and clueless n00bs don't get any hint about the issue. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Endercase is still pushing this issue aftermore than a year and a half, and after his having narrowly escaped an indef CIR block (really only by a technicality of a clumsy NAC by MjolnirPants) the last time. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, and leave me alone. Or, try again to get me banned. These types of comments add nothing to the discussion and aren't, in my opinion, proper conduct for an editor. Endercase (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm a regular RSN contributor, and you are not. (You caused a huge fuss here in March of last year and were promptly sanctioned before not editing here for 18 months.) I saw Breitbart mentioned, and immediately remembered what you pulled last year, and lo and behold, you were back here again saying the same thing. As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you should probably hold your tongue before insinuating that I am stalking you: if I recall correctly, you spent about a month following me around and delivering backhanded insults at every opportunity before being told by several admins to knock it off. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. If anything, it's even more unreliable than the Daily Mail, as they at least use trained journalists, whereas Breitbart is a fringe propaganda organization which lets its extreme partisan bias get in the way of how it reports things, and whether it does so, just as Fox News does. It too should be deprecated, but let's start with Breitbart (and InfoWars). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
    That's a deep rabbit hole to go into. Comparing a website that regularly publishes fake news to Fox News (this does not look convincing). That would lead to banning most cable news, and therefore most WP:PRIMARYNEWS, also shifting the criteria for notability. wumbolo ^^^ 17:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
You say that like it's a bad thing. There is a real problem these days with low-rent news sources using press releases in place of journalists. It's a core problem with the Mail, and clamping down on churnalism would, IMO, lead to a marked improvement in article quality. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Per WP:RSCONTEXT. Breitbart has a strong bias (which they admit), but there's a big difference between having a conservative/populist/nationalist point of view and lying. BB should be used with caution, but an outright ban on citing it would hurt WP far more than help. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Let me also comment that the source that JzG uses at the top to "prove" that BB is fake news is itself a highly biased source (and likely a rival/competitor) that took a single informal comment by a single BB editor out of context. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It's almost as if you haven't read the article on Breitbart. There are many. many sources that characterise this it as systematically dishonest. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@1990'sguy: The implication you made above that Breitbart does not engage in outright lying can be easily proven false just by reading their WP article. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Breitbart is hardly better than InfoWars, and what I and others said there pretty well applies here too. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support They don't hide their bias; anything they talk about that is actually useful will be picked up by more reliable sites. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, clearly not attempting to be a reliable source, shouldn't be treated as one. Acceptable primary source for claims about Breitbart, but not for anything else. —Kusma (t·c) 08:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. @Kingsindian: you see only downsides to formally banning Breitbart, no upside. But I think it would be very much an upside if we can get away from having long tedious disputes with aggressive newbies who insist Breitbart is at least as reliable as NYT, Wikipedia is so biased, bla bla, on and on. To be able to point to a formal ban would be a relief. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC).
  • Support No reason at all to use Breitbart either as a primary or secondary source: if no-one else has said it apart from BB, do we really want to? And as a further upside, anything that saves Volunteers' time and energies that could be spent more productively elsewhere can surely only be a bonus. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As per Iazyges. Waleswatcher (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. For a source to be used as a WP:RS, it must be a reliable source of truth. Breitbart is not, as can be seen from the links in this discussion. Zazpot (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Bias does not disqualify a source from being reliable, but supporting a certain point of view at the expense of truth and accuracy does. –dlthewave 02:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Breitbart intentionally distorts the truth in order to conform to their POV, and has been caught outright lying on many occasions. This is precisely the opposite of what Wikipedia strives for. Bradv 04:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolute unqualified support. This is a no-brainer. Breitbart ever since Bannon took over is a deceptive alt-right propaganda rag. Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE I supported The Daily Mail ban because it was proven that it regularly fabricated stories. That is a different to poor fact-checking and political bias and selective reporting. Many tabloids have a poor records when it comes to fact-checking, and if we are going to ban Breitbart for bias then we may as well ban The Guardian for the same thing. I will support a ban for any news outlet if it is proven it is currently fabricating stories on a regular basis, but no evidence of fabrication has been presented in the proposal. The precedent established by The Daily Mail ban simply does not apply in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We are not going to "ban Breitbart for bias". Most of the Support votes are based on its factual accuracy. Please see MPants_at_work's comment above which includes a list of verified examples of Breitbart publishing factually inaccurate information. –dlthewave 15:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The precedent established by The Daily Mail ban simply does not apply in this case. I actually agree with that. Breitbart is far worse. The DM RfC came about because it was borderline between "sometimes reliable" and "never reliable". Breitbart is pretty squarely in the latter camp. Even when they do say something factual, they put such a hysterical bias on it (seriously: Fox News is biased. Breitbart is a full-on propaganda source) that it implies counterfactual claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
You can find examples of factual inaccuracies in The New York Times, so what exactly makes Breitbart more factual inaccurate than lots of other low-rent sources that are regularly used on Wikipedia? What is the objective metric for measuring factual inaccuracies, and how does Breitbart compare to other sources in that regard? The RFC proposal suggests The Daily Mail as a precedent, but the The Daily Mail was fabricating entire stories. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
so what exactly makes Breitbart more factual inaccurate than lots of other low-rent sources that are regularly used on Wikipedia? Umm, the number of times they do it, duh.
What is the objective metric for measuring factual inaccuracies Umm, counting them. Duh.
but the The Daily Mail was fabricating entire stories. Umm, so is Breitbart [25]. Duh.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do at least a minimal amount of research and make at least a minimal effort to be factual in your arguments. Until you learn to do that, just consider me (and every semi-reasonable person on this site) utterly unconvinced by your objections here and don't bother trying to argue anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately my comments don't need to be taken seriously by somebody as rude as yourself, just by the closer, who hopefully will be more grown up than you. Since I am not the party seeking action from the community the onus is on those proposing a blanket ban to make a solid case for their position. Unlike The Daily Mail ban, this proposal has not done that. The comments here have not convinced me that Breitbart is an inherently unsafe source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing rude in my comments, just me pointing out what should be blatantly obvious to any intelligent person. In fact, the last line contained some truly helpful advice. Before you go accusing people of bad manners, you might want to stop and consider that the medium you're communicating in doesn't allow you to hear tone or see body language. But then, that's the sort of thoughtfulness that has been completely absent from your comments thus far, so it might take an special effort on your part. But you should really try. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
New York Times is "low-rent"? In any case, reputable newspapers can make mistakes, but will rapidly publish errata when they discover that. It's one of the distinguishing aspects of reliable journalism. —PaleoNeonate – 10:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't consider The New York Times low-rent, but I don't see why Breitbart is being singled out over say the Daily Star or Daily Express for a total ban. If the proposal was to ban tabloid style news sources along with other dubious online news sources such as The Canary (website) I could be on board for that. My problem with this proposal is that no evidence has been put forward that Breitbart is disproportionately worse than many other sources that are not banned. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Betty Logan, your argument above is, as it currently stands, an example of whataboutism, a form of logical fallacy. Zazpot (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't actually presented an argument, except to say I am not convinced by the case for banning it. Look, not only did I support a ban for "The Daily Fail" I was one of those advocating it since 2011 (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Time_to_axe_the_Daily_Mail), so I am not exactly on a "free press" crusade here. I have an open mind, and if someone shows me fabricated stories and interviews and convinces me we have another Daily Mail situation here then I would support the ban. If Breitbart was fabricating entire stories or had put up fake interviews then I would have absolutely no problem with banning any publication that did that. When I have worked on far-right articles I avoid "low-rent" sources such as Breitbart—among others—for factual claims; that seems like basic common sense to me but they can be useful for opinions and interviews because it is a pretty well connected news outlet. I'm not saying that a source like Breitbart is as trustworthy as the NY Times, but I think it has its place if it is used judiciously. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
MjolnirPants: Re fabricating entire stories, you said "Umm, so is Breitbart [26]. Duh." But the actual Breitbart article begins -- prominently, right at the start -- with "UPDATE: ... this story has been updated to clarify ..." etc. Breitbart did wrong within an article, Breitbart said oops publicly, Breitbart corrected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
That's not the "actual" Breitbart story, which you'd have seen if you'd read so much as the first sentence of it, or if you'd read the article I linked to. This is. So what you're saying is that Breitbart added a single sentence update containing the correction correction to a follow-up story, while leaving the body of the followup story intact and saying nothing whatsoever on the main story. Also, the "correction" claims that the article has been altered to state that the man was not suspected of starting the fires, yet opens with the sentence "The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) issued a detainer request on the Sonoma County Jail for Jesus Fabian Gonzalez, who was arrested Sunday on suspicion of arson in Wine Country fires." The correction itself is a straight-up lie. So if that's your evidence that Breitbart issues corrections, you'll have to excuse me while I laugh my ass off at how weak this argument is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
(1) The article you linked to is a Buzzfeed page which points to the page that I referred to, not the page that you came up with out of the blue after I followed what you linked to. Anyone can check this by looking above at what you said (before the word "Duh"), at what I said, and at Buzzfeed's link over the word "reported" -- compare URLs if it's not obvious immediately. (2) The correction says "Jesus Fabian Gonzales is not suspected of the recent Sonoma County fires that killed 40 residents", which was what was wrong, and which is not in the article any more. (3) ICE did indeed issue a detainer request and Gonzalez was indeed arrested on suspicion of arson in the area, as multiple other sources attest (e.g. LA Times or USA Today, so Breitbart didn't have to correct that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because User:JzG's source that Breitbart "admits" it's fake news is as fake as he claims they are. It's a sensationalized biased reading of the source read through partisan goggles. An RfC with an honest and unbiased start might persuade me to go the other way.--v/r - TP 01:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Template:Tpq Thank you m that is exactly the right question. And the answer is very simple. The New York Times has a reputation for fact checking, for correcting errors where they are identified, and for separating opinion from factual reporting. Like most newspapers they draw a clear distinction, identified within the print articles or the website, between factual and opinion articles. Breitbart does not. NYT's mission is as a reporter of fact. Breitbart's mission is stated ion the article: "#WAR has been our motto since the days of Andrew Breitbart, and we use it whenever we go to war against our three main targets, which are, in order: Hollywood and the mainstream media, number one; the Democratic Party and the institutional left, number two; and the Republican establishment in Washington, number three." Again from the article, "Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories, including claims that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration supported ISIS. It has sometimes published these misleading stories as part of an intentional strategy to manipulate media narratives via disinformation." The Mail does this to a much lesser degree. Paul Dacre is an ardent xenophobe and far-right blowhard, but not everybody at the Mail is, and the enforcement of far-right opinion in Mail reporting is usually the result of deliberate action. With Breitbart, it is their core mission, it is who they are. So the Mail is a once-mainstream news organisation whose right wing editorial bias has turned into a drive to push a political agenda (e.g. Brexit) whereas Breitbart was never a mainstream news organisation, it was founded and is entirely devoted to pushing an agenda far to the right of even the Reagan-era Republicans it decries as the "Republican establishment". The NYT is not a propaganda outlet, the Mail is an accidental propaganda outlet, Breitbart was built as one from the ground up. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: With Breitbart, [the enforcement of far-right opinion] is their core mission, it is who they are. [...] Breitbart was never a mainstream news organisation, it was founded and is entirely devoted to pushing an agenda far to the right of even the Reagan-era Republicans it decries as the "Republican establishment". [...] Breitbart was built as [a propaganda outlet] from the ground up. Do you have any evidence for your repeated calling Andrew Breitbart so far-right? Because I don't find it remotely likely that you're correct. And while Andrew Breitbart wasn't respected by all Democrats, he was certainly not a fringe figure among Republicans, both moderates and radicals, as you claimed. Read: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even peer-reviewed publications are routinely heavily biased, for instance toward's a researcher's preferred theory or towards an experimenter's experiment uncovering significant results. Bias will be present in anything written by a human. Sources from either side of the political spectrum are always going to portray the other as peddlers of false stories. Citing one against the other is meaningless. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. It's not about bias, it's about fabrication, propaganda and lack of fact checking in service of that bias. Breitbart is recognised as unreliable by multiple independent sources. We have an article and everything. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
There are a number of centrist-left and centrist-right sources, as well as moderate left and right sources which are routinely used on Wikipedia and are considered reliable sources. Those have nothing to do with this particular case. Citing one against the other is meaningless. We indeed have WP:FALSEBALANCE: some sources are "more equal than others" and don't report only individual opinions. We prefer them whenever possible, which when reliable and reflecting other WP:RS, can even be used in Wikipedia's voice per WP:YESPOV. When a source reports about the opinions of a particular person, it's different, of course. We should attribute personal opinions as such (per the same policy), when necessary. With a source like Breitbart, everything is personal opinion, often contradicting reliable sources. Its readers would like to believe that all sources are similar, but that's simply not the case. —PaleoNeonate – 10:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is Breitbart biased? Absolutely, so is the NYT's, the Washington Post, Fox News, and just about every other media outlet. But I have not seen any evidence that any factual mistake was done on purpose by Breitbart or not corrected when caught. Mistakes have been made, but that isn't enough. -Obsidi (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
There's evidence of that right above, in my response to betty logan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It is true that Breitbart got this one wrong, and they issued a correction for it. But I think you are mistaken as to the correction. The man in the Breitbart story did set a fire in that county, and he was arrested for it, and he did have an ICE detainer, as the updated Breitbart story discusses. What Breitbart got wrong was that the fire wasn't the deadly fire that killed several people. It was a rather small fire that deputies were mostly able to put out before firefighters got there. Breitbart saw that the guy was arrested for arson in the county with the wildfire that killed a lot of people and jumped to the wrong conclusion, and issued a correction. In fact, given the correction was issued to correct their mistake, this provides evidence in favor of them having editorial policies that correct such errors. I have seen FAR worse with the mainstream press. ABC News falsely stated that Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn had allegedly violated the Logan Act on Donald Trump’s instructions [33]. Fox News peddled the Seth Rich conspiracy theory before issuing a correction [34]. The NYT's incorrectly linked the scalise shooting with the 2011 shooting of Giffords. [35]. In comparison, the Breitbart mistake was an easy one to make, unintentional, and corrected. I don't see the problem with Breitbart. -Obsidi (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Template:Rto:Obsidi OK, please link the retractions / corrections for the following stories evaluated as false or grossly misleading by independent fact-checkers:
  • "Expert: 170 Registered Voters in Ohio’s 12th District Listed as Over 116 Years Old"
  • "Anthem Kneeler Says NFL Siphoning From Breast Cancer, Military Donations to Give Social Justice Causes $89M"
  • "Tidalgate: Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise"
  • "Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records"
There are plenty more where those came from. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Just because some other source disagrees with the opinion of the article doesn't make it untrue. We must look at the facts presented and see if those have been disproven without correction. As Snoops says concerning #1 above:"At the time of the August 2018 Balderson-O’Connor special election, the 12th Congressional district’s voter roll did include 164 registered voters ostensibly aged 116 or greater." Now they go on to say that the pattern does not suggest voter fraud but rather simple recording error. But the facts presented in the Breitbart story were proven true by snoops. Also as to #2, here is what snoops says: "These reports are based on a 30 November 2017 story in which San Francisco 49ers player Eric Reid said that the league would be shifting funds from existing charitable commitments in order to pay for an $89 million social justice program over the next seven years." That sounds to me like the claims made in the story you cite are true (there is no mention of Black Lives Matter in the story currently that I could find nor in the wayback citation for it that snoops cites). As to #3, this is not a dispute about any factual claim by Breitbart, but the underlying study that Breitbart is citing to. Every factual claim by Breitbart in the story appears to be accurate (although the underlying study they are citing to appears not to be). Can you please cite these independent fact-checkers on #4? -Obsidi (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
And there, in a nutshell, is the problem. You don't appear to understand the difference between opinion and fact. Breitbart probably do, but prefer the former anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Breitbart not only lacks a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but is known for the opposite. Of the five times Politifact fact checked its articles, 2 were found to be "false", 2 to be "pants on fire!", and only 1 was "mostly true". The ratings on Snopes are similar. The problem is not that Breitbart is merely biased, but that its bias leads to deceitful reporting and misrepresentation of its own sources. For example, look at "Revealed: 1,000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Germany’s Oldest Church Alight on New Year’s Eve" where Breitbart claims that "a mob of more than 1,000 men chanted ‘Allahu Akhbar’, launched fireworks at police, and set fire to a historic church". The article was based (at least partially) on online reports from Ruhr Nachrichten, which responded that Breitbart's article distorted their own reporting. This was widely reported in reliable sources. Breitbart's response was to call it "Fake 'Fake News'" and double down on its account and miss every point the other sources made. In a stunning display of obtuseness, Breitbart mentions the "few points of apparent contention: the size of the mob in question, the religion of the men involved, the age of the church involved, and the size of the fire caused"...which is basically everything about the story. Breitbart is the type of source your uncle brings up to spread birtherism conspiracy theories and we shouldn't allow that on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Woodroar: With regards to the Obama article, it was absolutely true. wumbolo ^^^ 14:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    Sources can be "true" yet misleading. The article purports to say something about Obama's changing biographical details, that "Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times". Yet the title ("The Vetting – Exclusive – Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’") and bulk of the article are about a document that supposedly proves Obama was born in Kenya. The author mentions an effort to fact-check the document with its original editor, Miriam Goderich, and that's that. The remainder is a laundry list of insinuations about Obama. Breitbart doesn't update the article to reflect that later that day, Goodrich said the mistakes were her own, which not only invalidates the document but undermines the claim about Obama's changing "public persona". It's massaging the facts until they tell the story that Breitbart wants to tell. They do the same with reporting from Ruhr Nachrichten to imply that an angry mob of Muslims torched a church when that's not at all what happened. It's no different from sensationalist true-crime stories that walk you through how the accused committed some horrendous crime but end with a "gotcha": it actually didn't happen that way at all and the accused is really innocent. Except Breitbart articles leave out the gotcha, simply misrepresenting the facts to tell their own version of the truth, which...isn't the truth at all. Woodroar (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support — per Woodroar, Breitbart doesn't seem to be following the golden standard of journalism, to say the least.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 08:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As unreliable a source as a trashy Tabloid ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Qualified Support Breitbart often runs articles from reputable wire services, like the AP and AFP. We should allow citations to such content, while baring original Breitbart reporting. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • As someone who has sometimes gone over stuff cited to Breitbart to make sure there was nothing absurd or which could be cited to a better source, I've noticed that its AP / AFP links are almost all dead now. I believe they used those early on when they were building their audience, but eventually dropped them. So it's unlikely to come up (and those links can be replaced because they're dead, rather than because they're Breitbart.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Breitbart still uses AFP reporting. See, for example, [36] this report from Sept 16 2018. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The obvious solution in a situation where an editor would want to use a Breitbart article with an AP/AFP byline would be to just find the content on a different website. For example, a web search for the first paragraph of that Florence article turns up a whole pile of better websites running the same content, even AFP itself. There's no need to try and carve out an exception for AFP/AP content on Breitbart when one can get the same information elsewhere. And I think a ban has to be all or nothing, otherwise I see it as inevitable that we will get overrun by attempted wiki-lawyering to include Breitbart references. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that most news agency content on Breitbart can be replaced. However, I think that it would generally be disruptive editing to remove citations to Breitbart hosted news agency content without providing a replacement source. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't like the use of blanket bans, but Breitbart seems to satisfy the conditions that required the Daily Mail one - an obviously unreliable source, with a reputation for inaccurate stories, which a few users nonetheless insist on trying to use as if it were a reliable news source. The last item is crucial for me - a ban like this has to be used cautiously for WP:BITE reasons if nothing else; there are countless obviously-unreliable sources that aren't worth the cost of taking this step for. But Breitbart seems like it requires it, since it keeps creeping into articles. My only concern is that doing this again could open the floodgates to attempts to codify a strict, extensive list of unreliable sources, which is undesirable. RFCs like these should be reserved for situations where there's a clear and pressing disagreement that needs to be settled with at least some degree of finality, rather than trying to nail absolutely everything down. --Aquillion (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Breitbart should only be considered to be a reliable source as to what the editorial opinions of Breitbart are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the Breitbart London headline today was "‘Civil War Is Coming to Europe’ Warns German Politician" which is claimed to be from an /unnamed/ city politician. To report this sort of stuff as news is typical. Just Chilling (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with some possible exceptions to using it for opinions. Renata (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • 'Support Intentionally publishing fake news and jokes with semblance of credibility and later retraction. This is hallmark of everything but reliability. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Do not cite for facts, and Oppose, allow citations for statements of Breitbart's social opinions Whether a source meets "reliable source" is in context. Breitbart is excellent as a reliable source for presenting the worldview of its audience. We removed the Daily Mail because of problems with "fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". Breitbart has a reputation for doing this also, but the difference is that Breitbart has recognition as presenting the worldview of a large demographic which has United States government and global power. The president of the United States endorsed Breitbart as an information source on many occasions and appointed that publication's editor, Steve Bannon, to a high government-oriented office. While I agree that Wikipedia should not present the information that Breitbart reports as undisputed facts, I do think that it is correct to summarize and cite publications like this with a qualifier that the paper presented a position. Using a model like "Breitbart reported that..." is an ideal way for Wikipedia to summarize the views of all sorts of publications. This is going to be a perennial challenge with many sensational publications covering many topics. Just so long as we demonstrate that the views of the publication are not fringe then we should summarize those views and present them. I do not think that every sensational publication needs a large audience and top-level government support to be worth wiki summarizing but it does make the case more clear. I want to share an example also. I developed an article about an activist event related to net neutrality, which is a hot political issue. Breitbart criticized this activist event. I wanted to cite a Breitbart publication to show what perspective opposes this activism. Another user, @Sirkh1: argued against this at Talk:Day_of_Action_to_Save_Net_Neutrality#Breitbart. I do not agree with Breitbart's views but in this case Breitbart is leading opposition to the social issue and one of the most important voices to include in the discussion about this event. Sensational or not, they are the powerbrokers over the government policy and a target of the activism. It is necessary to show various sides of a debate and demonstrate which group or publication takes which side. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have an awful feeling that this is very similar to the Daily Mail issue. It does seem that some editors have a grudge against conservative leading publishers. While we may not agree with the editorial stance (and I certainly don't when it comes to the likes of the Guardian, but I still use them to cite things), we should not allow any political views we may have get in the way of being able to use a right leaning publication to illustrate a right leading stance on an article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about whether sources are left/right leaning - it's about accuracy. As with your approach to the Guardian, I don't much like the Telegraph or the Financial Times, but I recognise they have reputations for professional, fact-checked journalism, so I am happy to use them as sources. The issue with Breitbart isn't its bias, it's the fact that it publishes disinformation and outright fabrication - there are examples all over this thread. You can't believe anything they publish, whether or not you agree with their world-view.GirthSummit (blether) 19:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with exception for quoted opinions. Seems like a very similar case to Daily Mail. If no other sources can be found, I would not be inclined to trust statements from Breitbart alone. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - sites like Breitbart should not be used for claims of fact, as they are obviously biased. Opinons, maybe - but not claims of objective fact. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local consensus can determine how much weight that website should carry. Prior to the death of Andrew Breitbart, I see nothing wrong with it as a source. Wikipedia has too much of a systemic leftist bias, already. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a general statement, support only as a warning This has nothing to do with leftist/rightest bias. It is at present a remarkably unreliable source for facts dealing with US politics in the broad sense, but it is reliable for its own opinions, and I think can even be used with care as a source for the general views of its followers. Most of its use in WP I think represents either of these two permissible uses; anhything else needs to ber looked at very carefully. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - It's fake news. BigDwiki (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support I don't think Breitbart is complete "fake news" like many of you are saying, but it has obvious problems. funplussmart (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Extreme support Breitbart is not reliable. Even when they print something true, I'd want it verified in another source before qualifying it as true. Therefore use other sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – As others have said, this is not a left/right issue (I have been calling on the community to issue sanctions against the use of The Canary (website), Skwawkbox and other left-wing non-RS), but to do with accuracy. The only exceptions I can think of are opinions of notable people (properly attributed), and even then there are issues of WP:UNDUE if Breitbart is the only source. As with the Daily Mail, I think that the argument that if it were notable, it would be published in other RS definitely holds water (although I would argue that it is less reliable than the Daily Mail by and large). --Bangalamania (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Opinions (break 1)Edit

  • Support I thought this was already the de facto practice. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per examples posted of inaccurate/false stories. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Surprised it isn't already listed as an unreliable source. I for one would never trust anything they publish. Kurtis (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A tempered bias in political leanings is one thing (and present in just about any news outlet); outright lying and fabrication is another. Breitbart has crossed into the latter territory long ago, and in WP terms, the AGF has definitely run out. There's no mileage in having to probe everything that comes from Breitbart for internal rot when so many better sources are available. Let's spare ourselves and our readers the aggravation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly not a RS. Catrìona (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a wise woman once said if someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Breitbart has shown their asses time and time again.Trillfendi (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as long overdue. Breitbart's self-proclaimed mission is to wage ideological warfare rather than offer legitimate journalism, which alone makes them a poor choice for a reliable source. That their ideology can best be described as white nationalism just makes it all the more disturbing when they are used as a source by either a well-meaning editor unfamiliar with what they're about, or by a less well-meaning editor who does know what they're about but has an ideological axe to grind. 28bytes (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't think anyone reasonable claims Breitbart as a reliable source. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per information given about about how they spin/create stories to serve their ideology. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:RSN#A_selection_from_Snopes  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Most of the reasons for opposing are along the lines of that there's a difference between being highly biased and lying. I think we can say that Breitbart falls into both of those categories. SemiHypercube 22:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm vaguely surprised that we hadn't established this already. XOR'easter (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Breitbart should not be used for anything but citing an author's opinion, where the author is an important figure. Of course WP:IAR may apply. This is a simple deduction from our existing policies, such as WP:QUESTIONABLE—"Questionable sources [...] include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist". Note that our article on Breitbart opens with the description "far-right", which is cited to several sources. Indeed, their views are extremist and even though there are doubtless many editors here who agree with their stances on most issues, we are not here to right great wrongs. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - as someone also said above, I thought a Daily Mail-type ban was already in practice. I've never opened Breitbart, but based on the Snopes list I'd say it's unusable for anything other than WP:RSOPINION, and maybe that too, since we could well be inviting readers to keep browsing the site after they open it from the citation. DaßWölf 21:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. There is too much history of it simply being a purveyor of deliberate misrepresentation. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Breitbart)Edit

Our article on Breitbart News is literally filled with discussion of the ways they've repeatedly and unashamedly distorted the truth in service of ideological goals. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The header of this RfC violates the RfC guidelines, in particular guideline 3, which states that the RfC header should be short and neutral. In what universe is that header "neutral"? It's arguing for a position. I understand that Wikipedia practice is often confused on this point: for instance, headers for WP:RMs are allowed to be non-neutral. Still, the guideline is perfectly clear here.

I suggest that JzG modify the header as follows: "Should Breitbart be deprecated as a source in the same way as WP:DAILYMAIL"? Then move the rest of text to a "support" !vote at the top of the survey section. That's the normal way in which I start RfCs. Kingsindian   03:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So you want me to ask for a source to be deprecated without stating the objective basis for the request? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of an RfC header is to ask for people's opinion on a topic, not provide your own. You are free to add your own opinion along with everyone else. See this for an example. Kingsindian   13:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Correct. And my opinion is in "opinions". These are the facts. Breitbart is a partisan site with a poor reputation for factual accuracy, fact checkers find large numbers of Breitbart stories to be misleading, false or both and the site admits to pushing fake news (see Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News). Guy (Help!) 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It's very simple. The RfC header is required to be neutral. This one isn't: it's taking a position. It doesn't matter what you think the source says. Kingsindian   02:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Our standards of neutrality are, you might have noticed, based on reality, not an imaginary state in which all viewpoints are considered equally valid. It is an objective fact that Breitbart is a "...partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy," and thus the question posed in the RfC is demonstrably neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's the definition of neutral: not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.. The RfC header is not the place to argue for a position. It's the place to present the question (namely: should Breitbart be banned as a source). I can't imagine that people don't understand how to start an RfC. Then I can only assume that this obtuseness is on purpose. Kingsindian   02:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything in that definition about obfuscating relevant facts in order to present a false balance between an obviously right and an obviously wrong choice. Have you ever been to WP:NPOV? You should swing by some time. We explicitly don't use that definition in our articles, why you think we should use it on an RfC is beyond me. You might also want to swing by WP:NPA before you cast more aspersions on an admin. Finally, if you think there's even the slightest chance that the wording of this RfC has any impact on the outcome, you should head on over to WP:REALLIFE. And probably stay there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the "false balance" about simply asking a question, without any injection of argument? The RfC header is not about NPOV at all; it's about asking comments on the question. You are wilfully ignoring this simple point.

I'll make the following proposition. Find a sample of 10 uninvolved Wikipedians, show them the wording of the RfC I proposed, and the wording which currently exists, and ask them which one better follows the RfC guidelines. Care to bet on the outcome? Say $5, to a charity of your choice. Kingsindian   05:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the "false balance" about simply asking a question, without any injection of argument? What, you couldn't be bothered to read the link? Presenting two options as if equally valid (when they are not) is the very definition of a false balance. A reader unfamiliar with Breitbart could read your "neutrally" worded question and immediately think "We should never be banning potentially useful sources!" and thus color their judgement in evaluating the question, or lead them to respond without evaluating the question. Meanwhile, the actually neutrally worded question that contains the very reason why the question is being asked in it would inform such a reader right off the bat why this proposal needs be seriously considered.
Care to bet on the outcome? Say $5, to a charity of your choice. Make it $100 and have at it. You're the one casting aspersions on the OP, so the burden of proof is on you to make your case. Of course, when you go pick out ten editors all known for their extremely conservative views, I'm gonna call you out on being blatantly dishonest. But I'm sure you'll have a blast proving yourself wrong in one way or the other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There's a subtle but importance difference in the documenting of something controversial in presenting both/all sides of the case in a neutral manner, and attempting to give false balance by trying to validate all sides. (This unfortunately has also gotten lost in the current NOT#NEWS/Recentism problems too) We absolutely should try to state, without any commentary or analysis, with equal balance, a summary statement of what each side of a controversy contends using their statements/opinions to the best of our ability - that's necessary to neutrally documenting a controversy. However, anything further to try to validate that stance, which involves what evidence, claims, and conclusions to support those statements should be a matter of using WEIGHT of RSes to support, and if it is clearly that one side's rationale is not getting the type of coverage, then so be it.
But how this comes back to Breitbart is understanding that on issuing of summary statements, particularly on the current array of partisan issues, is that the mainstream sources do not really document what the right has to say with a neutral summary, often labeling the material far right/white nationalist/etc. to sway readership/justify their stance. That itself is a whole different issue but the point is that the actual summary of the right-wing side of the argument is infrequently documented in a manner appropriate for our use from RSes, but is documented in that way from works like Fox and Breitbart, and sometimes only by Breitbart. Understanding that asserting the summary of what one side's stance is on a controversial topic from their own words requires only an RSOPINION source, then that makes Brietbart more often the best source to use for that, hence why blacklisting it is shortsighted. Using Breitbart subsequently to try to validate that stance though is not acceptable (and of course for anything factual otherwise). --Masem (t) 14:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We absolutely should try to state, without any commentary or analysis, with equal balance, a summary statement of what each side of a controversy contends using their statements/opinions to the best of our ability - that's necessary to neutrally documenting a controversy. However, anything further to try to validate that stance, which involves what evidence, claims, and conclusions to support those statements should be a matter of using WEIGHT of RSes to support, and if it is clearly that one side's rationale is not getting the type of coverage, then so be it. I read this, and re-read it, and I don't see how it contradicts what I said. I'm not sure if you were trying to argue with me or were agreeing with me, but I agree with this. It is a verifiable fact, and not in any way an opinion or subjective judgement that Breitbart is a "...partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy," I suppose you could argue that "poor" is a relative term, but relative and subjective aren't the same thing. There is no evidence that contradicts this fact. Breitbart publishing one accurate story doesn't say anything about the accuracy of another story, for example. So the question, as presented, literally states the most relevant, verifiable fact which the participants should consider. That may not be balanced, but it's perfectly neutral. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
My point was more about Presenting two options as if equally valid (when they are not) is the very definition of a false balance. and clarifying that there are subtle issues here that if we are documenting a controversial topic, there are ways that Breitbart may be needed to document it appropriately to summarize the points of contention, but not in a manner to try to validate a stance and leading to a false balance. Yes, there may be other sources that cover a right-wing stance statement that are better than Breitbart as suggested below, if those can be used, great, but that may not always be the case. --Masem (t) 16:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There are many websites and newspapers that are fine for right-wing opinion, better than Breitbart. Fox, WSJ, National Review, The Times, the New York Post, The Economist, the Washington Times, Quilette, The Dallas Morning News, The Hill, American Thinker, the Daily Wire, OANN, Il Foglio, La Nación, Die Presse, El Mercurio, Le Figaro, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, Kathimerini, The Chosun Ilbo, The Daily Telegraph, to name a few. And there is plenty of websites with a pro-Trump POV which we can safely use per RSOPINION instead of Breitbart. RedState, the Daily Caller, Fox, Twitchy, the Federalist, the Washington Examiner and the Conservative Tribune. wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We can use Breitbart opinion regardless of this RfC, which says "deprecated as a source in the same was as WP:DAILYMAIL and other partisan sites" [sic]. The Daily Mail RfC ban is not about opinion. Have a look at a Daily Mail discussion on WP:NPOVN particularly the confirmation about attributed opinions by three of the five editors who "closed" the Daily Mail RfC (Tazerdadog, Primefac, Yunshui). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the DM RFC was even stronger to point out that the only time it can be used for RSOPINION is when it is statements from its paid staff, because they have been caught editing statements from other contributors or people they interview. It is basically a no-go to use as a source anywhere unless the DM is a central element of a topic. While Breitbart is not good for factual information, I do not believe there has been any type of mangling of comments made from non-staff people - eg what people are quoted to have said is what they have said. --Masem (t) 16:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no reference to RSOPINION in the Daily Mail RfC discussion, and no conclusion that Daily Mail opinion can only be used if it is itself the source, and no conclusion that opinion authors must be paid staffers. "Attributed opinions of the author were not considered in the RFC ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
"Attributed opionions" is the crux of RSOPINION. I agree that the conclusion that it only had to be paid staffers was my bad memory but the re-statement in the above link still affirmed that part of DM's blacklist was because they faked quotes. Breitbart has not been shown to have the same issue.
My whole general issue with how this discussion is going is that editors are equating the reasons to bar BB the same reasons we used for DM. But they are very different situations. DM is for all purposes a celebrity tabloid, BB is a heavily-biased news source that plays favorites, but doesn't act like a tabloid, they've attempted to show editorical judgement to a degree (nowhere close to NYT's record). Both should be barred from being an RS, no question, but for all the biased coverage that the BB gives, and misinformation it sometimes uses, it still presents its own unique viewpoints on topics that should not always be discounted, and where BB is not necessarily central to the story. Maybe I'm overconcerned here and as long as there's reasonable IAR allowances that it can be used, but I'm seeing editors talk of removing BB at first sight as with DM, thus feeling that people do not want any wiggle room for the use of BB even as RSOPINION; I don't think that's a smart idea in the long run. --Masem (t) 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
This RfC proposal is for a ban the same as the Daily Mail's, which didn't ban authors' opinions, so if editors wanted to ban Breitbart authors' opinions they'd need to start a different RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
But what about using BB as a source for opinion-type quotations and statements from people that they interview (some whom RSes on the left would never touch with a ten foot pole)? If we were talking the DM ban, we'd never allow a DM source to be used that way, but that's because we know they fabricate. BB is not great, but they haven't been shown to outright fabricate others statements, so argubly that BB should be fine as a conduit for opinions of people they interview.
To be clear, this is not to allow BB to be used to rely "factual" claims made by others they interview. This would not allow for us to include the "fact", "dihydrogen monoxide kills one million people daily", if the only source for that was a BB that had an interview with a Dr. Smith that made that "statement of fact" , but would be reasonable if Dr. Smith said in that BB interview "I believe dihydrogen monoxide is the most deadly substance out there" to be used to attribute a statement on Dr. Smith's article about his opinion of dihydrogen monoxide. --Masem (t) 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart is known to take quotes out of context, for example this. An RS needs to present both the quote itself and any context and analysis with accuracy. –dlthewave 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So do many sources on the left, though clearly the better RSes do not play that game. It's certainly not a issue unique to Breitbart, but this is also different from outright fabrication and alteration which we know the DM did. --Masem (t) 17:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
As others have mentioned, they did fabricate a byline, apparently to out Ben Shapiro's father as a writer for the site. One fact that was missed in the uproar over that incident was that Breitbart had, up to that point, allowed Ben Shapiro's father to publish opinion pieces defending his own son without bothering to disclose the absurd conflict of interest. That level of unscrupulous behavior raises serious doubts that they are even reliable for the opinions of their own authors. Nblund talk 18:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Factual accuracy is not a "side". HTH, HAND. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Factual accuracy is relative to the scientific evidence supporting it, context is very important. There are a number of reasons we don't allow original research, no matter how accurate it may be. The same concept applies here. It was once considered factually accurate by a number of RS at the time that the earth in the center of our "solar system", some people who disagreed were sometimes even burned at the stake. If wikipedia had been around at the time, our articles on the issue would likely have still contained a reference the heliocentric model. Though dubiously cited, maybe even often removed, the "factually inaccurate" heliocentric model would have occasionally had its own article, likely marked as poorly cited and maybe even "protected" due to edit warring. This outright "banning" of sources regardless of context is troubling to me, reminiscent in some ways to the dark ages. While I am not saying that is the case here, it is worth noting the historical context of your argument. Endercase (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Scientific/RS consensus changes over time and Wikipedia changes to reflect that. We do not, however, include the current fringe/alternative opinion on the basis that it may one day be accepted. This is a discussion about whether or not to deprecate a source based on our current policies. If I understand your argument correctly, you are asking for a fundamental change to our Core content policies as well as one of the Five Pillars, "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", which states that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources". RSN is not the place to make that proposal. –dlthewave 15:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
It's amazing how often the Galileo gambit is used when trying to establish false equivalency between fact and bullshit. What those raising it forget is that the suppression of the heliocentric model was not at the hands of scientists, but the church. It is in fact an example in support of restricting Breitbart, because Breitbart rejects facts that conflict with its ideology in exactly the same way the catholic church did. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty to say about John's patronizing comment above, but the simplest one would be to point out that the reference removed was to The Mail on Sunday, not The Daily Mail. They are sister publications, but have different editorial staffs. For instance, the former supporter Remain, while the latter supported Brexit. Most people on Wikipedia, in my experience, don't even know the difference, and moreover, don't care.

Ignorance is no sin (I am ignorant of many things). But ignorance mixed with arrogance (like editing a page through full protection) and the force of a formal ban is a very bad idea. Kingsindian   09:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As to should Breitbart still be allowed to be used as a source in conjunction with other sources that are reliable; a relevant discussion going on in Talk:PragerU#Non-RS and is directly related to the result of the consensus here. As such any input on that issue would be appreciated. Endercase (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

When we have RS, we don't usually dignify unreliable sources by including them as well, though there are exceptions to all rules of thumb. There would need to be a good "necessity" argument for doing so. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression wikipedia was more about allowing our readers access to more information so they can form their own educated opinions in a quick and easy manner; not about "dignifying sources because we chose to include them". Could you please cite a policy that explains this concept in more detail? Endercase (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Unreliable sources are by definition deprecated. We try to avoid using them. There are exceptional situations, so a good argument for the necessity of using them must be made and a consensus must accept that use. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
So you can't cite a policy explaining why the inclusion of a particular source (even if unreliable) in Wikipedia for use in conjunction with other reliable sources is incorrect? But, you still hold that being used as a citation in Wikipedia is some kind of "reward", and has nothing to do with providing more information to our readers? Could you please clarify? Endercase (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I think what I've written should be sufficient enough for enlightenment. If you reject it, that's on you. I'll let others weigh in. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Sidenote, BullRangifer removed a rather long comment they made in this thread it might be worth reading for context. Endercase (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Endercase: Umm, I'm seriously reconsidering what I said on your talk page the other day after reading this.
I was under the impression wikipedia was more about allowing our readers access to more information so they can form their own educated opinions in a quick and easy manner; No; Wikipedia is about giving our readers accurate and verifiable information so they can form educated opinions. We don't care about "quick and easy" (see the Simple English Wikipedia), we don't exist to "allow access" (else we'd just be a list of sources) and we absolutely care about the accuracy and verifiability of the information we present.
So you can't cite a policy explaining why the inclusion of a particular source (even if unreliable) in Wikipedia for use in conjunction with other reliable sources is incorrect? WP:RS. Adding an unreliable source alongside a reliable one only carries implication that the RS is wrong in this case; it does not "strengthen" the claim, nor provide any tangible benefit to the project. Dude, I've got to be honest with you: This is Wikipedia 101 level stuff here. These are the fundamentals of this project. Only three people opposed this RfC, and the other two are well-known as having personal views that align with those of Breitbart (whether they will admit it or not). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@MPants at work and MjolnirPants: Directly from the policy you cite, specifically subsection 1.3 WP:RSCONTEXT: The reliability of a source depends on context. 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. While I may not be a supporter of Breitbart or it's tendency to be revisionist this is the controlling policy and, quite frankly, I agree with it. If Adding an unreliable source alongside a reliable one only carries implication that the RS is wrong in this case then readers have a right to know that a particular statement, even though apparently worthy of inclusion, is also supported by a traditionally unreliable source. Failing to cite it or, even as has been the case that I have seen on multiple occasions, deleting the citation and attempting to ban the offending editor if they try to recite it, seems to me to very much like a strong desire to lie by omission. The citation of a source like Breitbart by your own admission adds valuable context. While I'm definitely not making the claim that it should ever be used a sole citation for the inclusion of content I do firmly oppose this type of attempt to effectively remove the source from the encyclopedia entirely, which is based on the actions of the editors at Talk:PragerU#Non-RS the true intent of some of those voting in support of this motion. I see very little attempt to challenge this kind of consensus and I am proud to be in the minority view in this case. I believe it is a fundamentally slippery slippery slope to use generalizations in support of opinion and do not believe that my merly opposing the majority view in this consensus is disruptive or even NOT HERE despite some claims and implications. Endercase (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Please describe to me the context in which this article is a reliable source for claims of fact. To help you out, I will give you a relevant fact: the claims in that article are false. You might note the lack of correction, or the fact that the story is still live on breitbart.com. Both of those are relevant facts, as well.
Pro tip: If you have any answer other than "there is no such context", then you need to resume your mentorship at a minimum, because that is a serious misunderstanding of our policy. The rest of your argument consists of the re-assertion of things you've previously stated, and merits no response as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not defending that article nor was I ever defending that article. You have clearly shown that editors are quite capable of evaluating such articles separately and in context. Though, you (and others) have proven that the sole use of Breitbart Infowars and other such drivel in conjunction with each other is definite red flag and should be, as I advocate above, be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, you have not demonstrated to me why the wp:RS policy should be overridden, particularly the part which I quote above. Now, if y'all want to change the policy so that it says "all sources must be evaluated in context except for the sources linked in this essay, which should almost never be used" then you should change the policy. I mean using a essay to define a policy might be controversial. But, after all, that is what you are effectively advocating for and even what the 'new' description box for RS/N seems to imply. Seriously, why not just do this the right way and change the policy? Endercase (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
If you think this RfC would "override" policy in any way, then you need to read the close at WP:DAILYMAIL, then re-read it, then re-read our policy, because you are clearly not understanding what is being proposed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. If I point to a working clock and say that it's noon, that should be sufficient; if there's any doubt, we would consult another working clock. If I point to a broken clock, whose hands happen to be pointing at twelve, and say 'Look at that one', you'd think I was mad. It doesn't confirm that it actually is noon, nor does it imply that the broken clock is suddenly reliable. We shouldn't cite sources that we know to be dodgy because they happen to be correct about something - if a better source says it, just use the better source. GirthSummit (blether) 20:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This Breitbart discussion is another example in which the mediabiasfact check could assist our decision, although it only confirms it in this case. Once again leaving left/right bias alone stick to the fact check

A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN Fact Checkers. Here are just a few of many as an example:
Breitbart Duped by Fake News (Again) (False)
Following Joe Kennedy’s speech, Breitbart says Fall River, Mass. not built by immigrants (False)
Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim (Pants on Fire)
Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri? (False)
Trump’s ISIS Conspiracy Theory (False)

(Andromedean (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC))

A selection from SnopesEdit

From Snopes (and you know you have a problem when Snopes has an entire category devoted to you).

Even where the article is not unambiguously false (e.g. ‘Violent Mob’ Forced Police to Shut Down a ‘Patriot Picnic’ at Chicano Park?, Breitbart's reporting is sufficiently inaccurate that it is essentially a lie. The confrontation was initiated by the right-wingers, there was no violence, and they were escorted form the park by police because they were causing a problem.

Snopes' evaluation of Breitbaert stories shows that, where checked, clarification of laziness added they are almost always false or misleading. The record of Occupy Democrats is actually somewhat better, and there is pretty clear consensus that Occupy Democrats is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The point is already established that Breitbart is not to be used for claims of fact as an RS. The point that is being missed is that unlike DM, BB still should still be used for relevant RSOPINION, which doesn't matter what type of mis-truths it has otherwise published. As long as they have not been demonstrated to fabricate opinion statements (as DM has been shown to have done), then it is fine for RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 17:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
A dishonest opinion presented as a valid one is disqualifying for RSOPINION. Alex Jones is RS for what insane people think, after all, but, as with Breitbart and the alt-right, only because he is the one telling the insane people what to think. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
We are not in the business of trying to judge/discern and prevent the use dishonest opinion as long as 1) we aren't trying to cite is as fact and clearly mark it as attributed opinion and 2) it is a opinion recognized as authoritative for the side of the argument/controversy that it is on. That's where the impartial factors of NPOV come into play. --Masem (t) 22:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually we do this all the time. For example, if we want to describe David Duke's views on something we almost never cite him in his own publications. We should do the same here. If Breitbart says something significant we can sourcevit from third party RS discussions. I can't see why we would link to the motherlode if alt-right agit-prop to describe some piece of alt-right agit-prop. If it's covered elsewhere then use that, if it's not, it' UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it is nearly always better to find a reasonable reliable source to avoid using primary source directly to state what a person or group believes, but that's on the basis that the third-party source is either directly quoting or summarizing without additional commentary. But too often in today's media on these partisan issues, some of those left-leaning sources do not accurately capture what those on the right have said, not quoting directly and instead summary language that spins the view to their own way. (The right-leaning media does this too, they just do it more often). My point is that in a case where, say, a BLP on the right has controversial views and no one has actually quoted them or the like outside of BB, then this is where BB should be brought in to quote what the person had said, as to document the controversy; this is not UNDUE at all to establish the core argument. But absolutely nothing further would be pulled from BB in this case, assuming BB is not central to the controversy. If there are other mrore reliable right-leaning sources like Fox that do the same job, then better to use those, but I am considering where BB may be the only source with this material. We just want to make sure that the core issues are documented accurately and without influence of partisan reporting. --Masem (t) 14:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Quoting WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources ... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. This does not support using unreliable sources just to make sure that "both sides" are presented. If a viewpoint is not covered by reliable sources, we don't cover it on Wikipedia. RSN is for discussing the reliability of sources within our current policies and guidelines. Your suggestion would require rewriting policies and guidelines, which is outside the scope of RSN. –dlthewave 18:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
To neutrally document a controversial topic that involves two or more different viewpoints, an impartial statement of what those viewpoints are should be presented first and foremost, even if that means turning to SPS to get a quote of what that statement is, if no reliable source is covering it in any detail. After that, trying to validate or justify those viewpoints is wholly subject to UNDUE, meaning that there may be zero sources to validate the contrary view. That's fine, but that initial statement of what one side of the conflict is asserting should be included for neutral documentation. That also means that the controversy actually has to be something seen in reliable sources; a fringe group that has an issue with a topic but that no one ever refers to at all would not be able to push their agenda onto WP that way. But if RSes have identified something as controversial, even if they hand wave that there's no evidence or to disprove the contrary view, or the like, we should at least state with impartial clarity what that opposing view is. (Its like how most courts present opinions: they state what both sides brought to the table irregardless of how weak or insubstantial the claims are, and then write the decision based on the weight of evidence and case law to justify which side to pick.) This might mean using BB as a voice of the not-so-near-right an an authority to state the contrary opinion strictly as an RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 18:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I just learned that Breitbart declared War on Wikipedia back in April, at least per HaAaretz. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I would keep that in mind as circular reasons: they "declared war" after Facebook started using WP to combat fake news, which include BB due to how its article here was written about, which had led to new editors to try to "correct it" but which failed, hence making BB upset over that. If BB was actually talking legal threats to WP, that would be a totally different manner but the article above gives no indication to that, just that they were upset with how WP treated their page in the fake news wars. For us, that already means we've decided BB is not reliable for facts. --Masem (t) 02:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart has been criticizing Wikipedia for a long time. The reasons are complex, but Gamergate is one factor: "Breitbart Tech" was started originally to report on Gamergate, but it has expanded to cover the tech industry generally. I noticed the phenomenon at least two years ago. Kingsindian   13:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
At least part of that is from a former editor that was banned from en.wiki in wake of GG and now reports for BB. --Masem (t) 14:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
TDA only started writing for Breitbart in 2017. I am talking about 2016. Kingsindian   12:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Snopes' evaluation of Breitbaert stories shows they are almost always false or misleading. This is an irresponsible misstatement (almost certainly.) I don't read Breitbart, so I have no idea how many stories they have written, but I think it is safe to say it is more than a dozen. Even if the eight you list are all false or misleading (and that's not the case), finding 8 problematic articles does not remotely support the claim.S Philbrick(Talk) 23:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The comment above mine is made of fail. Ask me why. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: I consider your comment to be WP:UNCIVIL to an admin like Sphilbrick. I suggest you strike it. -Obsidi (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
And yet Philbrick's comments calling someone "irresponsible" are perfectly fine. Strange that. --Calton | Talk 02:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Obsidi, if you cannot distinguish between commentary on an argument and commentary on a person, then you have no business engaging in arguments in any forum where civility is expected. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say you made a personal attack, I said your comment was, in my opinion, WP:UNCIVIL. Let me remind you that Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Saying that someone's comments are "made of fail" but not explaining why is, in my opinion, uncivil. If you think he is incorrect, feel free to tell him that and explain why you think so. Think about where your comments falls on the chart in WP:TALKNO, it appears to me to be above a pure ad hominem, but not much more so than that. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project.. -Obsidi (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
What part of "ask me why" did you not understand? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── SPhilbrick is correct. Snopes does not claim that they randomly sampled Breitbart articles and fact-checked them. Instead, their methodology is to look at claims (typically going viral on social media) and fact-check the claims. Some of the claims aren't even made by Breitbart, but by third-party sources who were citing Breitbart. It's basically a giant game of Chinese whispers.

An example is the story: Anthem Kneeler Says NFL Siphoning From Breast Cancer, Military Donations to Give Social Justice Causes $89M, which is cited in the link Did the NFL Stop Donations to Breast Cancer and Military Charities in Order to Fund Black Lives Matter?. The Breitbart story does not even use the term "Black Lives Matter". It is a routine interview with an NFL player, originally by Slate, which was repurposed to add some spin for Breitbart. There's nothing original here at all (it's an example of "churnalism").

Obviously, I am not blind to the political agenda at play by Breitbart: they support Trump and oppose the NFL protests, so they will use any opportunity to overplay the divisions within the latter's ranks. But this fact does not mean that they are spreading false claims in the story under discussion. I could get a full-time job just fact-checking all the stuff written in this RfC. Kingsindian   12:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

the comment above this one is also made of fail, but mainly with respect to where it touches upon the subject of snopes. Ask me why. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Does a majority of articles need to be fabricated to consider a publication an unreliable source? Even if we don't take this and this as pushing a political agenda, it would still be a case of lousy journalism, showing lack of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which is part of our WP:V policy on RS. DaßWölf 22:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it would not need to be a majority. But its likely easy to tell when a source is covering high-profile topics and clearly mis-report or other type of errors that are quick to be pointed out and they do not take editorial steps to address them in a timely manner. (NYtimes makes mistakes too but they are slavishly dedicated to their errata section to fix and address them). BB has not show routine adherence to addressing mistakes, either suggesting they don't have good editorial oversight, or they are doing that purposely, either which disqualifies them for being an RS for facts. --Masem (t) 22:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being somewhat facetious there, probably should've added more question marks. Kingsindian is making the point that Snopes cherrypicked their complaints. The problem is, disregarding satirical publications, the vast majority of articles in any newspaper or news site have a basis in fact. It's the few blatantly incorrect and/or maliciously written details that are dangerous exactly because the readers will believe them on the basis of the factual majority. Hence, cherrypicking is irrelevant here. What matters is the size of errors and steps taken to fix them, where as you point out Breitbart shows that they can't be trusted for our purposes. DaßWölf 01:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My bad, out of laziness I omitted where checked. The point is not so much that Breitbart frequently publishes egregiously false material masquerading as fact, that much is well established, but that when this is identified, they will very often either ignore the facts or double down. They have false and misleading stories still online long after they have been identified as bullshit by multiple reliable independent fact checkers. And that is why they are not reliable. Their editorial mandate is to promote a far right agenda, not to report fact. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart/Gravis PollsEdit

A number of election-related articles include "Breitbart/Gravis" poll numbers. Gravis Marketing conducts targeted polling on behalf of political campaigns and other organizations; in this case it seems that the results go directly to Breitbart who then publishes articles such as this which is cited in Early/Mid 2016 statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. How should we handle this? –dlthewave 04:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See push polling. I doubt these are any better than the spam I get from the Mango Mussolini asking me to rate the President's performance from "Good/Great/Outstanding". Guy (Help!) 14:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Trying to see if there was a secondary source for those that were labeled B/G, I found that they actually partnered for the 2016 election, Gravis publishing its results through Breitbart starting that August [39]. This begs the question if BB is doing anything to touch Gravis' results, which would seem extremely bad if that was meant to be a partnership. It does sort of complicate the situation that it is BB re-reporting what Gravis found rather than just republishing what Gravis found. I would contend that if Gravis' polling is considered appropriate to include (it was used in the same article for the 2012 election), then if the do the same again in the future to publish through BB, that we'd have to accept the BB post as valid for Gravis' poll results. I would not label these "Breitbart/Gravis", they are still only the work of Gravis though. --Masem (t) 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
538 gives Gravis a C+ grade.[40] I think the polling articles need to set their own standards for which polls to include and exclude, and it should presumably reflect what polling experts (such as 538 and the NYT's Upshot) say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Given how utterly inaccurate the US political polling has been in the last few election cycles, I would say we should treat them ALL as unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
fivethirtyeight:

Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state. Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968.

Polling has been fine, not utterly inaccurate, also we'd only treat the polls as all inaccurate is if reliable sources such as academic papers or fivethirtyeight do so Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Polling being one of those forms of statistics that has a lot of wiggle room, as long as we aren't treating the polls as factual, but attributed data, then we're fine (not an issue on that page in question). --Masem (t) 21:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a ludicrous opinion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If 78,000 Republicans in three states had stayed home, Trump would have lost. Those three states were the ones Russian intel appears to have told him to target. In those states, Russian interests also worked to suppress the Clinton vote. I don't think you can draw any conclusion from this as to the accuracy of polling - there are no models for predicting unprecedented interference. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Although Gravis polls seem to be reasonably accurate, they should not be given any WP:WEIGHT unless they have been published by reliable sources. –dlthewave 01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Motion to Procedurally Close for Lack of Neutrally Worded QuestionEdit

Quasi-dubious process wonkery. Move on.WBGconverse 13:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The RfC question should be worded neutrally. By having the question worded in the way that it was (specifically the last sentence), it inappropriately WP:Canvassed people to that side of the issue (specifically its Campaigning). The people who viewed the RfC at WP:Requests_for_comment/Politics,_government,_and_law only saw one side of the question presented, before they even came to this page. I propose that this RFC be procedurally closed and failing to follow policy on neutrality, and a new RfC with a neutral worded question concerning Breitbart be started. Anyone that wishes to comment would still be able to on the new RfC.

  • Support as proposer. -Obsidi (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi: If you don't like the way a RfC is presented, the proper approach is to ask the nominator to reword the question. Bradv 03:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That was tried already, and refused, so more drastic measures seemed to be required. -Obsidi (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The same assertion was already made and dismissed. Breitbart has a poor reputation for fact checking, spreads fake news and engages in propaganda. Not liking those facts doesn't make them not true. Odd you should mention canvassing though. You don't edit much, yet suddenly you turn up here... Guy (Help!) 09:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Those facts are the very ones in dispute as to if a source should be considered reliable or not. As such pushing that side of the question in the RfC is inappropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
As to the Canvassing accusation. I have not been Canvassed into this discussion at all. If you would like to accuse me of that, please provide evidence of that. Otherwise WP:AGF. -Obsidi (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Nah, the result of the discussion is already pretty clear. If it were to be shut now, that would just throw away dozens of legitimate opinions. Reyk YO! 08:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
How many of those votes were canvased? Because if they were, they were not "legitimate" !votes. -Obsidi (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
None. Reyk YO! 13:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC: Occupy DemocratsEdit

Politifact rates most checked claims by Occupy Democrats as false and very few as unambiguously true: [41]. Should Occupy Democrats be deprecated as a source in the same was as WP:DAILYMAIL and other partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy? Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

OpinionsEdit

  • Support as nominator. "Our mission is to Occupy Democrats on November 2018 AND BEYOND by voting in a LANDSLIDE of progressive Democratic candidates dedicated to rolling back President Trump’s extremist agenda." This is my aim too, but it does not mark them out as a reliable source for anything. It's a political activist movement, not even a formally constituted political party, and there is little or no accountability for what is said in Occupy's name or Most links are now removed (by me and others, over a long period), and few of these removals have been challenged. It's my view that we should not source anything to Occupy other than strictly factual and uncontroversial facts about Occupy on the articles related to Occupy and related people - if a claim is not covered in more reliable sources then it's not significant and probably WP:UNDUE, if it is, we should use them instead. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with no prejudice to support in case if there's consensus that the source is unreliable there is very little evidence that this organization is unreliable. Most reliable sources have had more controversies and retractions. This should go through a more lengthy RSN discussion in order to better judge the reliability. wumbolo ^^^ 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Mixed - Reliability depends on context. As with other advocacy sites, this would be reliable for attributed statements of opinion (viewpoint), but not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I suppose we may have to have this discussion so that this can be blacklisted..clearly under WP:SELFPUB and having the opposite of a reputation for fact checking an accuracy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Beyond notorious reputation, their about page states they are "political organization and information website that provides a counterbalance to the Republican Tea Party. It has grown into the largest and most active community of Democratic voters in the world" - with the exception of stating they are an "information website", there is no specification of an editorial board or any process what so ever of vetting their publications. The rest of the about page makes it clear they are an advocacy platform (for electing a slate of newly-energized progressives to Congress).Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The issue wit the Daily Myth was accuracy, not bias. Is there any actual evidence they are not accurate?Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Doesn't appears to have a substantial reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; I can't imagine that we don't have a better source for anything published here - and if one cannot be found, that's probably a good sign it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I wouldn't use it, I'd probably remove it if I saw it being used, but it's not up to DailyMail standards of bad, so a blanket ban is too much. Volunteer Marek 22:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per the linked ref provided by the OP. This is clearly not a reliable source for anything whatsoever. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, tentatively. As I wrote below, this isn't one that I've had much cause to look at in the past, so I'm just doing some digging now.
The Atlantic: "The content plastered across these pages includes standard-issue clickbait ... and hyperbolic headlines ... But these feeds are also studded with straightforwardly fake news."
Buzzfeed News: "a fifth of its posts were false or misleading, according to our analysis."
problems on Politifact
and there are a bunch of stories about its problematic content: CNN, Snopes...
Based on this sort of thing, I'm inclined to agree with those arguing that this is not going to be a reliable source for anything but attributed opinion, and that it probably shouldn't carry much weight with that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for the same reasons as Brietbart, DM and others. When Media Bias Fact Check says that it Promotes left-wing propaganda without regard to sourcing, my hackles are up. Once again it might be OK to cite as an WP:RSOPINION source when the author is a source worth quoting, or when they are talking about themselves; so oppose a blanket ban. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The site doesn't claim to have an editorial board or process. The organization is a biased or opinionated source, as its stated mission is "to Occupy Democrats on November 2018 AND BEYOND by voting in a LANDSLIDE of progressive Democratic candidates dedicated to rolling back President Trump’s extremist agenda". The copyright year in the footer is 2017. The site is relatively unpopular, with an Alexa rank of 733,620. I don't see any indication that this source is any more reliable than a personal blog. — Newslinger talk 06:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think these reasons alone are sufficient justification to deprecate the site, but the analyses posted by Rhododendrites certainly are. A 20% defect rate is not acceptable. — Newslinger talk 08:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • support just more partisan noise making.Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Rhododendrites's links, subject to the standard exceptions such as non-controversial facts about itself. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support unlike the Daily Star discussion elsewhere, I'd say this is not a reliable source and should be depricated per Rhododendrite's link and with the same exceptions as Patar knight. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as above. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I can't find any instance where the site broke any news, hired any journalists, or did any original reporting in a conventional sense. It looks like an ideologically motivated content mill. It's possible that they will follow the Huffington Post or Buzzfeed trajectory and start doing actual reporting in the future, at which point the issue might merit revisiting. But for now, anything "original" they report isn't reliable, and anything reliable that they report is already covered by a better source. Nblund talk 01:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not as bad as the DM, but Support anyways because fuck unreliable sources. The fewer we use the better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. If this is the best source we can find for a claim, that claim shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. (With the usual caveat that it can still be used as a primary source for statements about what Occupy Democrats says.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Only allow in certain contexts I wouldn't use it, and it's obviously for opinion (and a partisan one rather than a genuine ideological one). However, we don't completely blacklist the Daily Wire (which I'd argue gushes with POV-charged falsehoods even more than the Daily Mail) on the basis that there are circumstances where - without using it in Wikipedia's voice - it can be used to quote an opinion. As for whether or not we should allow this to be a source, absolutely not, support noting that this is not a source. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 11:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons I mention in the Breitbart !vote above. Per WP:RSCONTEXT.Endercase (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support They don't hide their bias; anything they talk about that is actually useful will be picked up by more reliable sites. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support No proof that they are reliable or responsible news organisation --Shrike (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support From what I understand, their goal is to make easily-sharable, pithy content rather than genuine journalism per se. It's better to just use whatever source something they write uses than cite them directly. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support They don't seem to have published their editorial policies to qualify which would require an editorial board of some kind. They should be considered a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. -Obsidi (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Support — Per the links provided by Rhododendrites and they don't seem to have a great editorial oversight, to say the very least.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. They're an advocacy op-ed and news sharing site without a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If there's a need to cite them for anything beyond primary claims, we should just cite the original source instead. Woodroar (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Biased, not reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Strong support Obviously unreliable. I'm disappointed that this ever was on the list.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. As an organization dedicated to the advancement of a partisan agenda, it is ill-suited to be used as a reliable source. 28bytes (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support They pretty much bring attention to other people's stories, so anything sourceable to them should actually be sourced to the original, which would presumably have less spin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose What's the point? Just because a source is generally unreliable doesn't mean it should be blacklisted. R2 18 px (bleep) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Self admitting "[This is a] website that provides a counterbalance to the Republican Tea Party. It has grown into the largest and most active community of Democratic voters in the world" [42]. This clearly tells who are they and why they shouldn't be used to source fact for Wikipedia. If they're the only source of a certain fact then it's pretty problematic, otherwise use other reliable sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Rhododendrites' analysis. DaßWölf 01:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: much better sources are readily available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Rhododendrites. Possibly ok for RSOPINION but even then it's not really clear who they are, "progressive democrats" is a varied and vague tent, so unless the author is notable I'd hesitate to even use that. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Occupy Democrats is an unreliable source that should rarely if ever be cited in articles. That's why it's currently cited in only two articles. We don't need to formally deprecate every unreliable source, only the ones – such as the Daily Mail and Breitbart – that are frequently cited in articles. This is a solution in search of a problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because obviously it's not a reliable source except where primary sources are acceptable. Per Aquillion and Arms & Hearts, I don't think this is a real problem on Wikipedia anyway, and I oppose blacklisting because we don't pre-emptively blacklist sites until there's a problem. However, to oppose would be hypocritical of me given my position in the Breitbart discussion above and I don't see harm in clarifying the unreliability of a source. I don't know the context of this RfC but RfCs shouldn't be started in future until there's a demonstrable problem. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Can't say I have much experience with this one, but it's the same as the one we have an article about, right? In that case, why wouldn't it already be caught in WP:RSSELF as being a Facebook page? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This RfC appears to be about their domain (http://occupydemocrats.com/), not their Facebook page. — Newslinger talk 08:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah. I would facepalm if so many of the sources didn't specifically talk about it as a facebook page. Regardless, the material seems the same. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I have a pretty strong body of knowledge of leftist media sources, and some of my views are controversial (TeleSur should be a reliable source for Latin American news, the People's Daily is about as accurate for Chinese domestic news as the BBC, the Daily Star in the UK is a perfectly legitimate newspaper) and yeah, Occupy Democrats is not good. It's just a partisan shouting page; there's no attempt toward accuracy here. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: how many articles do we have which link to Occupy Democrats? I know there's a tool to check this but I don't know where to find it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Searching article space turns up only two links to their website and one to their facebook page. One is a valid WP:EL on the page about them, one is a dead link but it looks like it was a Daily Show clip merely hosted there, and one a WP:PRIMARY cite accompanied by a secondary one (although the secondary source is Daily Kos, which has its own issues.) None of them would be affected by this RFC as far as I can tell - the EL is valid, the dead link should be replaced anyway, and the last one is possibly a problem because of a weak secondary source, but obviously leans on the reliability of that source and not this one. Searching for all mentions in any namespace turns up a bit more on talk pages, but not much (many of those are the output of some sort of automated link-checking tool, it looks like.) I feel that RFCs like these should be reserved for situations that are causing serious discussion and need to be decisively resolved, not for terrible sources that almost nobody is trying to use anyway and which is getting removed immediately when they do. While this source obviously fails WP:RS for anything anyone would want to use it for, having frequent RFCs like these, even for minor and little-known sources, could lead to people starting to feel that any source is fine as long as an RFC hasn't rejected it already. The vast majority of non-WP:RS sources do not require RFCs, since they're uncontroversially getting rejected when people try to use them as WP:RSes already. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Primary genetics studiesEdit

  • Note -- this was archived in this diff, and in the same edit as this note, I have de-archived it. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Are primary genetics studies covered by WP:MEDRS? Stuff that is published in journals like the European Journal of Human Genetics or a primary study like this (available through PubMed) [43]? Seraphim System (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not an expert on WP:Biomedical information, but I would use that particular study with extreme caution, given that it's authored by current 23andMe employees and is promoting that company's questionable methodologies more or less uncritically. In general, my opinion is that science-and-race research is so complicated and so often bitterly controversial [44] that WP:SCIRS and its instructions for finding scientific consensus in authoritative secondary sources should be followed strictly. FourViolas (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Primary studies generally fail MEDRS, and shouldn't be used to support any assertion about biomedical information. What's the context? Girth Summit (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please follow the guidelines of this board and tell what the source is used for --Shrike (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally, primary sources are only reliable for verifying quotations or descriptive statements about the source itself... ie if we quote a primary source or closely paraphrase what it says (with attribution in our text), we can cite the source itself for verification (ie to show that the source does indeed say what we say it does). HOWEVER... that does not answer the question of whether we should quote or mention the source in the first place. To answer that, we must apply other policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Context matters. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In my view, especially on these contentious topics of genetics and ancestry or ethnicity or race or whatever, we should more or less forbid use of primary sources and require secondary sources. None of those are biomedical information in my view and are really WP:SCIRS topics. Genetics and disease is the most pure WP:Biomedical information topic, I would argue that we should treat genetics and intelligence or any other phenotype as biomedical information as well -- those are the ones where WP:MEDRS clearly comes in.
  • The community would probably benefit from an RfC on this. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC) (add earlier arbcom case Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC))
  • I've been thinking about this exact issue recently. A major problem is that for a lot of these "genetic ancestry of group X" topics, there simply aren't any good secondary sources. Entire articles are built out of primary sources, and even some of the more well studied areas that do have secondary sources, large portions of those articles are still built from primary sources. Getting stricter on this would wipe out many articles completely, and drastically shrink others. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • exactly :) Use of primary sources + controversial topic --> neverending strife for the community + content of dubious quality for readers (since it is hard to use primary sources appropriately) Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to run an RfC on this, stating something like:

Should the following be added to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)#Respect_primary_sources?

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.

Thoughts or tweaks? Is SCIRS the best place to put this? Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, but I wanted to note that a lot of our articles are sourced to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy's Journal of Genetic Genealogy. See this link for some insight into it. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Gadzooks, we should not be using that. That will go. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Last call! I've pinged a couple of projects to get their input. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This is about genetic research, right? Well then, I would say (as a member of both WikiProject:Paleontology and WikiProject:Cats) that while using genetic research- it generally comes up as relating to subspecies/species/genera/etc. classifications- is very controversial. A high quality, respectable secondary source and/or a consensus in the scientific community should also be obtained. And when it comes to paleontology, genetic research is considered highly unreliable (thus, high-quality secondary sources AND scientific consensus should be obtained). Just my two cents, though.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally I'd say that this is already well covered by the policy on using reliable secondary scientific sources (review articles in decent journals), and whenever biomedical aspects are involved, also by MEDRS. That's two very powerful and central policies already. We don't need more, just to enforce the existing rules will be sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Chiswick Chap I have been following up on the OP because this is a problem. People argue, and fiercely, to use these under SCIRS and plain old PRIMARY, each of which gives license to use primary sources. Primary sources are used extensively for the ethnic/population history things, see for example DNA history of Egypt, Archaeogenetics of the Near East, Jews#Genetic_studies and of course Genetic studies on Jews, and see the many pages you get with a search on Genetic studies of... Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC:Genetics referencesEdit

Should the following be added to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)#Respect_primary_sources?

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

!votes on genetics refsEdit

  • Support, it's unfortunate that we need to call this out specifically as it has been Wikipedia policy pretty much from day 1. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, well worth having something specific and unambiguous we can point to. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It would be good to spell this out explicitly, even though it is redundant with long-established policy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the reasoning in support of the three "support" "votes" above, in my view, confirm that our existing policies and rules are explicitly recognized as being designed well enough to deal with this concern. Therefore, this addition is not really needed and is more of an overabundance of emphasis, which is not consistent with the project's streamlined and efficient profile, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS: reliable independent secondary sources. WP:MEDRS is firmer still. This merely clarifies policy with an explicit statement. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support MEDRS is a good policy and would be usefull to apply to this topic. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Qualified support I support the addition of something akin to this wording, but I am struggling with the sentence ending ", which are controversial." I just feel this is clumsily worded, should be better phrased, and does rather contradict the section that has just preceded it. Could I offer the following alternative wording for consideration?

A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.
However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not normally be used to generate content, as these are often seen as controversial subjects. Instead, high quality secondary sources, as described above, should be used. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.

Note: The first paragraph is included, completely unchanged, from WP:SCIRS, though 'good article' ought really to be changed to 'well-constructed' article, as I'm sure it isn't intended to imply WP:GA. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope... the "not normally" is the door that the people who fiercely want to use these, will push right through. The RfC question is "should not". And these subjects are controversial here in WP; this is guidance for editors here in WP. There are at least two arbcom cases with pending DS that are relevant -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence. We can cite those as footnotes if you like. With regard to "contradicting", the general statement in the first bit remains true - the "however" clearly signals that in this subset of primary sources, a different standard applies. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The literature on this subject is clogged with far too much politically motivated crap. A higher standard is appropriate, and although calling this a medical topic is a bit of a stretch, I think applying the same standards here would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per XOR'easter. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per standard policies and practices in this area. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support. In my opinion this is already policy (WP:PSTS), but overuse of primary literature in articles about (or tangentially related to) human genetics and archaeogenetics has been rife for years, so repeating it explicitly here is a good idea. – Joe (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • support per discussion above the RfC which lays out the problems caused by using primary sources about genetics for ancestry etc.. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clarifying is likely a good idea, especially in a topic that requires sound sourcing. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support but delete the words "which are controversial." We should be using quality secondary sources regardless of whether the material is controversial or not, and besides, it can be hard to predict what will be controversial. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the support arguments above, and I'll also point out that we have Discretionary Sanctions in topics about race and intelligence, and I think this proposal is helpful in handling issues there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant You can put me in 'support' but there isn't much point adding this to an essay, as it will be disregarded because of that. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Fundamental Oppose The situation is not analogous to MEDRS. First, there is an established scientific consensus in most areas of medicine. There is much less of an established consensus in many areas of human genetics, especially human population genetics. This reflects several aspects of the field: First, the evidence in the field is actively developing. All publications before the late 20th century are essentially guesses, and all subsequent work is subject to subsequent and ongoing revision, as more genes and populations are examined, as earlier chronological material becomes available, and as methods of analysis develop. Second, The literature is structured differently: there are many fewer researchers and journals, there is no systematic pattern of reviews, and no groups that really have an unquestioned standard of authority. Third, questions of group identity are involved, and involves both the selection of primary sources to use , and the interpretation of the secondary sources, which can often widely differ. Even members of the same hypothetical group will sometimes interpret the same information very differently, and will tend to be very fixed in their own interpretations.
Therefore (a) we must often use primary research sources--I point out in this connection that all scientific peer-reviewed papers are both primary and secondary sources--they report their own research findings, but the also review and interpret the prior literature. and (b) there are very few current reliable secondary sources--the best that there are can not honestly do more than give their view of the present interpretation, and I would serious question the reliability of any that attempt to make a more definite statement. I think any honest researcher understands the limitations, but that may not be true of all people contributing to these articles.
Even in its field, MEDRS has proven to be somewhat of a straight-jacket--it certainly does remove nonsense, but not all non-orthodoxy is nonsense, and it has been used at WP to try to deprecate the findings and views of particular groups that some WPedians think are out of favor, or where there are sharply divided views each claiming to be the one orthodox position. As we try to use it into the areas closer to the social sciences, this becomes even more dangerous. NPOV does not mean that there is a neutral point of view; it means we show neutrality by explaining al responsible points of view. NPOV does not mean we can necessarily find a single consensus statement. Otherwise we fall into the trap of the 11th Brittanica, and enshrine a temporary cultural attitude. We can do better than that--because we represent a range of perspectives--we are crowd-sourced, not interest-group sourced. What this means in practice is that those who are quire sure of the proper analysis need to reconsider--even if they agree with my own opinion about the matter. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC) .
  • Support - The results of these studies are often only as good as the latest dataset, and the interpretation changes dramatically with a single additional ancient DNA sample, and some primary reports have already been superseded before they ever go to press. We are better off waiting to present a developed consensus rather than ping-ponging around with each new primary report. If that means that some obscure finding that only appears in a single primary report doesn't get included in an article, then the finding couldn't have been that noteworthy anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on genetics refsEdit

User:Nocturnalnow People argue, and fiercely, to use these under SCIRS and plain old PRIMARY, each of which gives license to use primary sources. Primary sources are used extensively for the ethnic/population history things, see for example DNA history of Egypt, Archaeogenetics of the Near East, Jews#Genetic_studies and of course Genetic studies on Jews, and see the many pages you get with a search on Genetic studies of... Your claim is not true. Please also see the arbcom case and many, many discussions linked above. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this intended to prevent all use of primary sources in this field? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I would interpret it as absolutely normal Wikipedia practice: primary studies are OK for uncontroversial facts, but anything that is controversial or challenged requires a reliable independent secondary source. The issue is that people using these sources to argue specific genetic interpretations think that reliable is enough, but policy is pretty clear. If a genetic study is important then there will be secondary sources, especially review studies. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Peter (Southwood)'s question confirms that confusion is already showing up. "primary sources...….should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial." does not literally mean only content which is controversial or challenged are subject to the ban on primary sources for content. The "qualified support" editor has also already pointed out the confusing wording. This needs a lot more thoughtful discussion before a binding Rfc, I'd say, even if there has already been lots of discussion. It may be that this issue is so challenging that a solution may not even be possible. There are problems like that, which have no acceptable solution. I am not qualified to say this is one such problem, but I can say that just the few comments thus far, even the ones that vote Support, do, in fact, scream out WP:CREEP, and that this additional wording might cause more problems than it solves. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I also notice that this proposal specifies articles related to humans, and not to any other forms of life. Is this just an anthopocentric omission, or are other organisms intentionally excluded? I just reread the whole thing and it is clear that this is only intended to refer to human genetics · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Serious question: The first three comments included:

  • "it's unfortunate that we need to call this out specifically as it has been Wikipedia policy pretty much from day 1."
  • "well worth having something specific and unambiguous we can point to."
  • "It would be good to spell this out explicitly, even though it is redundant with long-established policy."

and yet I have seen many, many proposals about similar situations shot down by citing WP:CREEP ("This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community"). Why the difference? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

    • Because it is a serious and pervasive problem that needs addressing. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2018 {{(UTC)

@Jytdog:Does the proposed change is to essay? If yes it will not change anything as it will be brushed off as not policy or guideline. --Shrike (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

user:Shrike we should point to this RfC. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: If you want to stick it.It should be a part of guideline at least.This RFC doesn't set policy it only aim to amend some essay. --Shrike (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
hm. maybe. I think the RfC will be enough and we can always circle back and do something like a note at WP:RS if that becomes necessary. Small steps are generally better. Maybe others will give their thoughts about whether we should jump all the way to RS now, or include this as a note at RS now. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Either you should start a new RFC that amend WP:RS or change the current and that users that already voted to certify their vote. --Shrike (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It'd make more sense to get WP:SCIRS promoted to a guideline. It's nearly there anyway. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • User:DGG, please pardon but I moved your !vote up into that section. But.. your main argument seems to be "no reviews"... and I am kind of surprised by your lack of reference to the 2 relevant arbcom cases.... But about reviews:
    • one search (("Population Groups/genetics"[Mesh]) AND "Human Migration"[Mesh]
    • another, "Haplotypes"[Mesh] OR "Genotype"[Mesh] AND "Human Migration"[Mesh] AND Review[ptyp]
    • another - Search term ("Jews/genetics"[Mesh]) AND "Population Groups/genetics"[Mesh]
There seem to be plenty, and those were pretty quick. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
this is still a good deal fewer than in clinical medicine. Furthermore, if your read them, you will find a surprising lack of agreement. I consider most of them as susceptible to bias as any other source. (the bias is not necessarily national bias--this is among the topics where workers in the field tend to have mutually incompatible schools of thought) ,. I'll go further and say that, I've seen a good deal of skepticism over the actual reliability of even the best secondary sourcing in medicine, if for for reasons including that the studies on which they are based are much less statistically reliable and reproducible than they have been thought to be. I think our ready adoption of MEDRS has proven a over-credulous reliance upon authority. As for the arb com cases, had I been I on arb com at the time, I would have voted otherwise. I instead think that WP should make a special effort to cover fully all unconventional views, because we are by far the most accessible reasonably reliable source of information on them. The key thing we need to do is indicate the status. The difficulty is that this cannot really be done without original research or at least extensive subject knowledge. I am aware that my view is very different from yours, which to my mind basically says we should minimize treatment of any other other than the current fashionable orthodoxy. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The Daily MirrorEdit

If you're effectively black-listing the other British tabloids, even having automatic warnings trigger which basically tell you not to use them as a source (but not making clear that things like, e.g., statements in interviews reported by the paper should be kosher) leaving The Daily Mirror off the list (i.e., this list Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources) just looks like political bias. In terms of reliability it has no better reputation than the others. Most famously it published hoaxed photographs of soldiers beating detainees in Iraq on the front page. Under Piers Morgan it was deeply embroiled in the phone-hacking scandal. It's reportage is the same dreck of celebrity gossip as all the other tabs. Why is it omitted? FOARP (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For context, see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Mirror. Looks like previous discussions are here and here, with the most recent being from 2013. GMGtalk 13:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I argued at the time (and since, more then once), that we should not single out the Daily Myth. And I agree the Daily Mirror should also be banned for the same reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I lean toward exclusion of tabloids generally, but there is a substantive difference between the Mail and the Mirror (and Sun and the rest) in its fabrication of stories, churnalism (especially in Mail Online), harassment and incitement to harassment, and of course its notorious "sidebar of shame". Guy (Help!) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I remember when we were voting to exude the Daily Myth that I got it's lies mixed up with those of the "Daily British solders torturing Iraqi prisoners shock photos", sorry its lies are far far worse and far ore damaging.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
But what does "blanket deprecation" mean?
We already have policies on sourcing in general. We do not have a pervasive problem with such that would be improved by automatically excluding certain sources, just because they're easy to define.
If we want to source David Beckham's inside leg measurement, then the Mail is probably a good source for that. The problem there is a focus on tabloid subjects, not their sources. Now if WP was to exclude more of the gossip column topics, then I'd be fine with that, but it ain't going to happen. We are already mired in many DM sources for such, and neither they nor their articles are going away.
There are cases where the DM uses its deep pockets to buy newsworthy photographs that others can only dream of. Those are cases where it justifies itself.
If political bias is the problem, then why is the BBC permitted? They've become dreadful (Laura Kuenssberg, I mean you) in recent years.
WP is forever finding reasons to exclude the UK press as "worthless tabloids", yet USA Today and Fox News are unchallenged.
We need a policy which says that editors need to make editorial decisions to exclude bad sources and avoid bias. We already have this. We can't replace such an editorial demand by simply saying, "The Mail is out, but Fox is OK". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
At present we have blanket deprecation of the Daily Mail. This means if you edit a page to include a reference to it you receive a warning telling you not to do it. If you then still go ahead and do it, it appear an alert is sent as you will very likely then see someone come into to remove the reference even for non-contentious material. There is no really reason why the Daily Mail should be blanket-banned in this fashion, but not the Mirror which has many times done things equally as bad (the hoax-photos scandal, the harrassment during the phone-hacking scandal etc.) and is just as arguably not an RS. Not to do so seems like pure political bias. EDIT: just to emphasise the point here, Wiki already is "automatically excluding certain sources, just because they're easy to define" FOARP (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the problem?
  • Will this fix it?
  • Are there other solutions?
I do not see a blanket focus on the publisher as being anything like as effective as good editorial management of individual sources. For all three of these points. In particular, because the Mail or Mirror might be bad but there's much worse out there these days and because those sources are US, they're never going to see the same overall deprecation. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • We also have edits like this (Go on, guess who) which are blanking sections of relevant, non-contentious content, simply because the Mirror was involved. And yet they don't tag the content as needing better sources (as policy states they ought to) or even fact-checking it themselves (BTW: [45])
This pruning is nothing to do with improving anything, it's just the same handful of editors waving their egos around. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it is about a handful of edds getting fed up with this kind of crap being used as a source when you cannot trust it. This might not be an issue if we enforced "notnews" rigidly, but we have to have live news feed articles, and so we use media sources whose first concearn is "exclusives" and "scoops" not accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
So would you support the deletion which I linked? As an outright deletion? Or tagging as {{better source}}? Or as a removal of the Mirror cite and {{cn}} adding?
Because edits like this (removing the lot) are damaging in a way that they do not need to be, and it's not being done to "improve" anything, it's just being done to massage egos. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
That is irrelevant, you could ask the very same question about and NonRS. I would also suggest you AGF, this is not about egos (unless it is the ego of Newspaper editors and owners who think they do not have to follow the rules of common decency whilst acting as moral guardians), this is about using only the best and most accurate sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Well it's better than The Sun, but that's not exactly saying much. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Daily Mail was banned for repeatedly lying, not just for poor fact checking. I probably would have supported a ban for The Daily Mirror while Piers Morgan was editing it, but is there any evidence that its inaccurate stories are any more than poor/lazy journalism? Once Paul Dacre leaves the Mail we'll probably have to review that ban too, if we can be sure the fabricated stories have come to an end. If we are going to just ban The Daily Mirror for being crap then we should just bite the bullet and ban all British tabloids for being crap. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    Further comment: Can I just say that I have noticed the Daily Mail ban being used to remove opinion pieces such as reviews and op-eds from the article, and it really bugs me. I support the ban for factual reporting but I don't think it should apply to op-eds. For example, this op-ed Ed Miliband wrote in defence of his father was a notable story, and there is no reason to suspect that the article does not accurately reflect Ed Miliband's feelings towards his father, and therefore I see no reason why we can't use it in a primary source capacity for the writer's own opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    The problem there is that the Mail has a well-deserved reputation for fabricating interviews, too (this is a notorious recent example). In Miliband's case it's almost certainly genuine as he didn't complain, but one can't be sure. Where the Mail is undoubtedly a RS is as a citation for itself ("on 2 August the Daily Mail claimed that..."), but anywhere else it needs extreme caution. ‑ Iridescent 19:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    I am okay with banning the DM as a source for interviews, but an interview is a different beast to an op-ed. In an interview the journalist writes up the interview so the capacity to misrepresent somebody still exists. That is quite different from an op-ed or a review where the author retains control of the piece, and to be fair the DM discussion focused on factual accuracy, not opinion pieces. I took part in that discussion and supported the ban but it has over-reached what I originally supported. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the Daily Mirror was involved in one of the biggest hoaxes of 21st century UK journalism and was deeply embroiled in the phone-hacking scandal, and that the topic under discussion here is not the Daily Mail, which is already essentially a banned source on Wiki, but the unequal treatment of other UK tabloids which are little or no better. PS - Betty Logan, Paul Dacre has already left the Mail. FOARP. PPS- Andy Dingley I think you're right about the inconsistency between the UK and tabloid/propagandistic sources external to the UK, especially when not only Fox News, but RT, have avoid blanket deprecation - the difference for both of those sources is that there is an active community on Wiki dedicated to defending them and preventing the kind of blanket deprecation applied to other, undefended sources. All the same, if we're applying blanket bans, then this should be done consistently. (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we may be over0interpreting the Daily Mail ban, to the extent that it may need rewording. It has to be used very cautiously, but not all of it is worthless. As I have followed these issues here on RSN for the last 11 or 12 years, there has been an increasing well-merited skepticism about many individual sources, I think we are losing the perspective that there are many intermediate grades between sources that are always reliable and sources that are never reliable--I've stated this previously as "no source is always reliable for all purposes, and no source is totally useless for some purposes. We have to consider not just the name of the source and its general reliability, with the actual content of the particular item involved. To use an unrelated example, various afds in the last year have rejected (in my opinion correctly) even the NYT as a RS for notability in some of the coverage of some of its columns, about "interesting" human interest subjects. The reverse is true even of the Daily Mail. Nothing it says can be trusted to be necessarily true , but some of what it says has been, even some matters which other sources have not initially reported. There is no way of dealing with RSss except judgement in the individual instance. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of point. Since the Mirror is permitted, so should the Mail. That approach is ineffective, far better to be direct. Also, when a source is unreliable, it is unreliable for everything except its own opinions. We don't know if Ed Milliband really wrote the op-ed or if it is a hoax. And if it were a hoax, we would not expect Milliband to complain since the publication is considered unreliable. Furthermore, nothing published in the DM has any weight, unless it is reported in other publications, since weight requires that articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (my italics). Hence we could not use the op-ed in any case. TFD (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing on Donna SummerEdit

Last week I made a Huggle revert on Donna Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a questionable deletion. User Rick solomon said that a cited quote in an article from a reliable source (The Philadelphia Inquirer) was inaccurate, without anything to back it up. The quote was from someone named Rick Solomon talking about Donna Summer's artwork (see this diff). The user went on to say that he "never made the quotes attributed to me" and that "the citation cannot be retrieved any longer" on my user talk page. There's no way of knowing for sure that the user is who he says he is, and upon further investigation I found that the only reason the article is unavailable is because of a change in the website hosting the article. The link directly in the article now redirects to the Philadelphia Inquirer archives website. I found the original article in the Inquirer archives when I searched "Donna Summer," but you now have to pay $2.95 to be able to read it. For reference, here is the original article in the Internet Archive. Requesting another opinion on this situation. Aspening (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no issue with the source, and what the ed says is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the cause of Rick Solomon's concern is that the archived article quotes Jack Solomon — not Rick Solomon. The fifth paragraph of the archived article introduces the speaker as "Jack Solomon, chairman of Circle Fine Art Corp., ..." Here are links to the first and second parts of the article as it appeared on the printed pages. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Interesting... would it be appropriate to add the content back in with Jack Solomon as the person quoted? Aspening (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity under Communist regimesEdit

Is [46] "Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Schoenhals, Michael (2008), Crimes against humanity under communist regimes – Research review (PDF), Forum for Living History, ISBN 978-91-977487-2-8" a reliable source on the topic of Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes ? See [47] with comment "oh please--pretend you know what WP:RS is) ". Hence, I figure asking at WP:RS/N is the proper cource. Collect (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

given its authorship yes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, these are well-respected historians in the relevant field. The report probably isn't peer reviewed, but it looks like it is primarily relying on peer-reviewed work, the publishing organization isn't obviously biased on this issue, and I don't see any glaringly exceptional claims. Nblund talk 15:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
How is there another one of these useless capitalist propaganda pages? I am guessing Crimes against humanity under Capitalist regimes comes up a red link when I finalize this comment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Eh history is written by the victors? PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I just detest these clear walking wounds on the fabric of WP:NPOV it's obvious and irritating. I'm very tempted to WP:BOLDly merge this into the almost-as-awful mass killings one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Detest then the multiple AfDs and RfCs which disagree with what you find to be "clear". see also Anti-communist mass killings Collect (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, being a gross violation of WP:NPOV is not a valid premise for deleting an article through AfD. And I'm aware of Anti-communist mass killings also I have heard before that "we don't need Mass killings under Capitalist regimes because we have Colonialism" but I still think that it's a vulgar double-standard. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
And I would note that Capitalists mass-kill lots of people who aren't communists. Like the genocide of the first nations of North America. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Just for the sake of arguing, I think the topic "mass killings under capitalist regimes" would simply be far more difficult to find sources on. "Communist regime" is well-defined to a small list of states that exist or existed over a defined time period. The same cannot be said for "capitalist regime", since capitalism came into existence gradually, and it's unclear which states could be considered capitalist at which times. There also does not appear to be a major scholarly discussion about the topic of "mass killings under capitalist regimes" while there is one about "mass killings under communist regimes" or "mass killings under colonial regimes" (though most of the regimes in this latter category could be described as capitalist, I think it is the colonial aspect that's emphasized in the literature). Thus any article on the subject would have to be stitched together from different sources about mass killings under specific regimes, with few sources on the larger topic itself to guide the direction of the article. But maybe I'm wrong, and there are sources specifically about the mass killings under capitalism, not colonialism or imperialism. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a bad place to be WP:BOLD given how controversial the articles are; but you could start another merge discussion, at the very least. The content is pretty redundant between a lot of these articles anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You Know I Got SoulEdit

I am thinking about working on the article for Tamar, and I was wondering if I could use the following source (1)? Here is the About page for the website (2) and the Contact page (3). Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Should 'audiophile' oriented sources be used for opinions about digital audio quality?Edit

I came across a very poor article (K2 High Definition) which is written like an advert. The non-primary sources are audiophile-oriented reviews providing a very unscientific view of audio quality. To quote one review:

"The K2 HD Sampler and DSD CD’s offered differing perspectives in dimensionality and dynamic contrasts. Although the DSD CD’s already surpassed standard CD’s in a more full-body spatial and tonal dimensionality, its colossal, high-profile portrayal of instrument body marked a stark contrast to the K2 HD disc’s more unified and microscopic-like delineation of instrument bodies and timbre characteristics."[1]

Audiophiles have been criticized for pseudoscientific views. Writers for mainstream audiophile magazines like What Hi-Fi? have openly spoken against scientific measurements: "You can put whatever research you want in front of me, all the measurements in the world aren’t going to stop me from having the opinion that all digital cables do not sound the same. There, I said it."[2]

Jumping to my question, should reviews like this be even included in articles about audio technology, even when there's nothing scientific about them? RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Soo, Constantine (September 2007). "K2 HD Standard Review". 
  2. ^ Madden, Andy. "The great cable debate – crossed wires?". What Hi-Fi?. Future plc. 
I think it would be unwise to exclude it. People are not scientific instruments, and what we hear may not be exactly measurable by what I suspect are rather unsubtle instument measurements. The article you are complaining about doesn't exactly come from the3 same part of the forest as the blog you are complaining about. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You appear to have missed an important point. Let me illustrate with an example:
Let's assume that you claim to be able to tell granulated salt from granulated sugar by tasting them and that I want to test that claim.
I don't need any special instruments that can detect salt or detect sugar. All I have to do is to conduct a double blind test.
You are presented with multiple samples of sugar and salt labeled "001", "002", etc. The samples were labeled by someone in another room who flipped a coin to decide which to use in each sample, and neither you or I know which is which.
You taste a pair of samples, and tell me "same" or "different". I record your answer.
We repeat the test 64 times.
If you get it right every time, there is less a one in sixty four thousand chance that you did it by chance, and I conclude that you can indeed tell sugar from salt by tasting them.
If you guessed correctly half the time, I conclude that you cannot tell salt from sugar by taste.
Now I repeat the test with Morton's non-iodized salt and Walmart's house brand non-iodized salt. You only guess right half the time. And to be thorough, I do a chemical analysis and find nothing but salt in either sample. I conclude that you cannot tell them apart.
I publish my results in a peer reviewed journal, and a couple of other scientists do the same test and replicate my results.
Given the above, which do you think is is true?
[A] You can tell sugar from salt but cannot tell name brand from house brand salt.
[B] You have a magical ability to taste differences between salts that disappears as soon as it is subjected to a proper scientific test.
Any guess as to what happens when we test the ability of those "golden ears" to tell a $50 digital cable from a $1,000 digital cable without them knowing which is which? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


  • As long as we present opinions AS being opinions... and NOT as scientific fact... we should be OK. This is more of a WP:NPOV issue than a WP:RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Ugh. These are the people who think you can hear the difference between a Cat6 patch and a $500 "interconnect cable". Guy (Help!) 13:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the article, which I don't disagree with—it was a complete ad full of technobabble. The question still stands though, should writing of this kind quoted above be considered a reliable opinion source on technology? RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Was this article subject to an AfD? Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion (G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion) RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Can't see the article that this was originally about, but yes, well-known audiophile publications are fine for opinions, of course. "Full-body spatial dimensionality" sounds non-scientific in the context of a review, not pseudoscientific. There is some pseudoscience in the audiophile world, sure, and obviously if the claim is scientific it's possible the publication wouldn't be reliable (depends on the specific claim/publication, I suppose -- some are better than others). Also would want to be wary of sponsored reviews in those magazines. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
See also turboencabulator. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • When these people come to my house to listen to my music, I almost always tell them I use "studio-built" equipment, describe my speakers as "monitors" and claim all of my cables are [insert latest fad in audiophile cabling here], even though very little of that is true (for example, I'm actually streaming the audio -which is coming out of a $30 DAC- over wifi, and while my speakers are technically studio monitors, that only means that they're individually amplified and have a dinky little three-band EQ behind the cover). They ALWAYS believe me. Not one skeptic thus far. Most of them tell me how great it sounds, compared to my (former) bandmate's setup, which is virtually identical to mine but which he refuses to lie about.
So if I ever see a claim of fact being sourced to an audiophile website, I will immediately remove it as being based on an unreliable source. But reviews, I think, are okay, because audiophiles are a big enough community that they can influence the market. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Context isn't clear, due to article deletion. The article was about a CD (regular Redbook CD) mastering technique that claims to have 24-bit/100 kHz fidelity on a regular Redbook CD. It was deleted because it was a full-on promotion piece, and not an encyclopedic article.
The reception section was accounts of people listening to a promo CD and saying that it sounded really good. The reviewers did not do any kind of blind testing. It's mostly bad in context, because this was used in the article to hype a proprietary technique. This makes it different than reviews saying "this consumer product sounds very nice".
I specified "digital audio" because that's an area with a lot of marketing, products that make people laugh ($100 USB/Ethernet cables) and very little research. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If the hundred dollar USB cable makes you laugh, this $630 dollar one should leave you in stitches. And there's a review out there saying that the difference between this and a hundred dollar cable was "staggering". Yes, they're that gullible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That second reference is quite the read: "BretM brought up the subject of hard disks, and whether they could make a difference. In my opinion I see no reason as to why there couldn't be differences between NAS devices and hard drives in the way they sound." Wow. --tronvillain (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The author forgot to mention, but the mood of the mother-in-law of the technician who printed the labeling on the HDD makes a big difference, too. Better hope you don't get one worked on by a single person, or god forbid someone who'se mother-in-law recently passed away... And don't even bother storing your music on an SDD, you'll just ruin it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem with this thread is that it is subject to oxidation. if we were using oxygen-free text rendering then we would be able to see the merits of the argument much more clearly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Twitter as a source for someone's political viewsEdit

In this edit, John removed The Vintage Feminist's statement about Armando Iannucci's support for the 'People's Vote' campaign, saying that it needed a better source (it was originally sourced to the Mirror, a British tabloid). I proposed using this tweet, in which Iannucci himself declares his support for the campaign, but John has said he's not happy with using a tweet. If I read WP:SELFPUB correctly, it says that Twitter is an acceptable source for information that is purely about the owner of the account, and isn't controversial or self-serving. This seems to me to meet all of those criteria. Thoughts - is this tweet an acceptable source for the original claim? 17:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Mirror article is not a tabloid article about him, it's an opinion piece he wrote himself. It's clearly an acceptable source about his views. Consider the five criteria from WP:SELFPUB:
  • 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim — It isn't.
  • 2. it does not involve claims about third parties — It doesn't.
  • 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source — It doesn't
  • 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity — I think publishing a fake opinion piece from a public figure would probably get attention.
  • 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources — The article isn't.
I don't see any problems with it as a source for his views. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Tom Crean article COI edit requestEdit

The author of this book has made a COI edit request asking that information from their book be added to the Tom Crean (explorer) article. Considering the article is a 10 year-old FA and the COI editor's source is self-published, I thought I'd bring the request here. I would have included the verbatim content here, but the request is quite large. The diff of the request is here. Thank you!  spintendo  20:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any specific objections to the source? Describe if you do. Anatoliatheo (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of reliability, it is way too technical and analytic for an encyclopedia article. Zerotalk 13:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense since requested edit is itself too large. Anatoliatheo (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for your replies. To answer Anatoliatheo's question, the only objection I would have as a neutral reviewer would be that it is self published information. If the request were granted, it would seem to remake the article in large portions so that they re-align with the publication, which may strike other editors as troublesome. It would most likely trigger the article's FA status being placed under review (which considering it is 10+ years old, may be a good thing). I was thinking perhaps of taking the request to the Military WikiProject which governs the article. Their reputation for being one of the more stricter WikiProjects would work to the article's advantage, as this would bring more experienced eyes to review the requested changes. Thank you both for your input, it's much appreciated!  spintendo  15:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

famousbirthdays.comEdit

I know this has come up before, but I think this is also coupled with recent BLP questions regarding birth dates, so I will ping that page to this.

Famous Birthdays purportedly documents the birth dates and years of celebrities. They do not provide sources for these dates. Per #3 of their terms [48] "We don't warranty the accuracy or suitability of the information found on our platform for any particular purpose. We acknowledge that such information and materials could contain inaccuracies and we thus absolve ourselves of any liability for any such inaccuracies to the extent permitted by law."

To me, this clearly makes it not reliable, but it still keeps on coming up. The current situation I've seen it is for Shin Lim. I wrote much of this bio, and the sources I found (quality sources, that is) do not give his birth day, only his age. I do not know what the editor in this diff [49] has in relation to Lim, but the "does not want his birth date publicized" falls square in line with BLP, since I can't find a source that is reliable, I've never included it (only birth year-ish knowing his age). But with him in the news, we've got newer editors trying to source to Famous Birthdays, which is not helping.

So should Famous Birthdays be at all considered a RS? Since it offers no other content, I would also almost argue this should be a blacklisted site, assuming that we do not trust the birthdays given. (But you can certain say, if Celebrity X is claimed to be on this birthdate, can I find a better collaborating source for it...?) --Masem (t) 23:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Clearly non-RS. Unknown publisher. No information about, or reputation for, fact-checking. High-likelihood of being a circular source in at least some instances. Abecedare (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Might be reasonable to blacklist it. --Izno (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Prior RSN discussions about the source: 1,2, 3, 4; all with same consensus opinion. So I would be fine with adding it to the list of perennial sources. I was pleasantly surprised though that famousbirthdays.com is currently not linked from article-space although quite a few draft-articles seem to cite it. So I'll leave the judgment as to whether it is worth adding it to the spamlist to editors more familiar with the standards applied in that area. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just want to throw a +1 here. When searching for a BLP DOB it is an unreliable site that pops up frequently. Blacklisting might be a good options to avoid future issues. PackMecEng (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been removing its use as a source and external link since early 2017. I'm not keeping count, but my impression is that it's added about once a day, mostly from inexperienced editors. I stopped removing it from drafts once it became common knowledge among draft reviewers that it is unreliable. I'd requested it be given to XLinkBot back in Feb 2017, and have been keeping notes there on what I've found. Using an insource search:like this makes it easy to find actual usage within articles. --Ronz (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Source used for War CrimesEdit

Found on 162nd Turkoman Division article:

  • This is it:Atlante delle Stragi Naziste e Fasciste in Italia. It looks like a good source. It's a combination of both new and old research (with an extensive bibliography), and was compiled by a team of well-credentialed academics. There was both a research team, and a scientific committee to oversee them. There is also a mechanism in place to report errors for correction. Short of something really weird turning up, I don't see any reason not to assume it's generally reliable for factual statements. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Someguy1221. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

goodreads.comEdit

Is Goodreads.com a reliable source? I see it being used extensively (e.g. the page List of urban fantasy novels uses it more than a hundred times). In that kind of volume, we are just parroting whatever goodreads said. My understanding is that it is a wiki site with user input. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised there hasn't been a discussion (that I can find) on this. Yes, a great deal of the information there is user submitted, and I assume the rest is from publishers. I treat it as reliable for basic catalog info on books and authors (e.g. that a certain book exists, by a certain author, with a certain publication categorie, etc), assuming that this information is coming directly from the publishers. I don't think it should be used for anything else, and especially not for BLPs citing their author profiles. --Ronz (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I will happily use Goodreads personally for reader opinions about books just as I use Yelp for opinions about local pizzerias when I am hungry in a town away from home. But neither source is acceptable for general usage as references on Wikipedia. For basic bibiographic information about books, far better sources are available, starting with Google Books. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm surpised it is allowed by the edit filter. It's being used extensively. Form the above I see one vote for using it as basic biblio info (would the publisher site not be better?) and another against all use.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Seconded, while the publisher info on the site is likely accurate, this is information that by definition will be readily available at other sources that are more likely to be accurate, if not independent. I really can't imagine any reason for needing to cite goodreads other than WP:CITESPAMsigned, Rosguill talk 00:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Ronz has hit the nail on the head with how to treat it. I also think that there are more reliable sources for this information. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I would never use goodreads as a source. My question is more about what to do with the many thousands of times it is already used, and whether we should be adding it to the edit filter? I imagine there is another noticeboard for that?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Utterly useless, to the extent that its presence in an article is enough of a reason to check the entire article contents very carefully. Anyone using it in an article wither does not understand the nature of sourcing for books. As suggested aboe, I agree we should add it to the edit filter.

Baidu Baike - Used extensively as a reference here, it's a Chinese language anonymous wikiEdit

Baike is the name of a wiki run by Baidu.com intending to compete with the Chinese language Wikipedia. Baidu is a censored government news source in China. I don't even think as a wiki with anonymous submissions that it could ever qualify as a source here. Unfortunately the English Wikipedia has thousands of refence links to it [50].

Diving into this needs a bot.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Our article Baidu Baike gives the method of its preparation. If that account is accurate, it should, within its limitations, be of higher quality than WP and probably similar to any of the general encyclopedias we use as references.For topics with political implications, I , it could still be used as the express of the Chinese government position. The practical difficulty is that the Chinese government seems to take a very broad view of what topics have political implications. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
"probably similar to any of the general encyclopedias we use as references."
Probably not, since those encyclopedias have an editorial process. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
About as reliable as Russia Today. Which is to say, not at all. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This noticeboard is not the place for chauvinistic, jingoistic comments like the above by JzG. We had the RT discussion, a no-consensus outcome, smack dab in one of the worse periods of the Donbass conflict. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicolae Sfetcu ebooksEdit

Google Books

They consist of Wikipedia articles copy-pasted (maybe slightly edited) into self-published ebooks, see WP:CIRCULAR and WP:MIRROR.

I removed about a dozen references to one of his books "The Music Sound" from Wikipedia a few minutes ago. I'm not sure how to submit some kind of blacklist request, since it's not a particular domain or anything. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Balance of refs removed. I checked: there is no plausible way this author would be reliable for the cited content even if it were not scraped. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Good job. I think there should be some kind of RS warning somewhere about his books, they pop up quite frequently on Google Books because it's basically thousands of WP articles. I'm not sure how to report spam authors, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist seems to be mostly about spam domains. Google Books obviously isn't a spam website. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)