Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Information

From Wikipedia
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: [].
  • 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".

In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

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.
Additional notes:
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280
281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300
301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320
321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330
331, 332, 333, 334, 335

RealClear media

Moved from 

I'm wondering about the status of RealClear media, IOW RealClearPolitics (RCP) and RealClearInvestigations (a redirect to RCP). My initial impression is that they are aggregators, but also with own, very biased, content. All I find is this thread opened by User:JzG in November 2019:

Valjean ( talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this use at our conspiracy theory article Russia investigation origins counter-narrative:
Jeanine Pirro, a long-time friend of Trump, [1] described Mueller, FBI Director Christopher Wray (a Trump appointee), former FBI Director James Comey and other current/former FBI officials as a "criminal cabal," [2] saying "There is a cleansing needed in our FBI and Department of Justice—it needs to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in cuffs." [3]
Here we have a combination of types of sources. All content at Wikipedia (other than WP:ABOUTSELF) must come from RS, even to document the most ludicrous pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc. If something is not mentioned in RS, it does not have the due weight to be mentioned here. Period. That makes this use of RCP, if it is deemed unreliable, very dubious. The NYTimes and Salon should be enough. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer" [1] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts ( talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC) IHateAccounts ( talkcontribs) has been blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous ( talkcontribs). jp× g 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    What's wrong with labeling an opinion piece as "Commentary"? Commentary literally means " expression of opinion". feminist (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    Nothing, I guess. That piece also clearly introduces the author as "a columnist for RealClearPolitics". For example The Guardian (at least the British one) is considered generally reliable, but some times I have to squint if I want to quickly figure out whether something is labelled as opinion. Random example, this is in "News" section and more specifically in "Business" section, though below the article it is labelled as "Coronavirus / comment". If one wants to know more about the author, they would have to link the author's name to read a profile page where the author is described as "a columnist, author and small business owner". Politrukki ( talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If we're going to discuss RC's reliability, it should be done at WP:RSN rather than here unless there have been additional threads on the matter already. -- Calidum 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree. I'll move this there, so feel free to continue there. -- Valjean ( talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Grynbaum, Michael M. (December 22, 2017). "Jeanine Pirro of Fox News Helps an Old Friend: President Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved February 25, 2018. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter ( link)
  2. ^ Hains, Tim (December 17, 2017). "Pirro Doubles Down: Andrew McCabe Is "Consigliere" Of The FBI "Criminal Cabal"". Real Clear Politics. Retrieved February 25, 2018. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter ( link)
  3. ^ Tesfaye, Sophia (December 10, 2017). ""It's time to take them out in cuffs": Fox News' Jeanine Pirro calls for a purge of the FBI". Salon. Retrieved February 25, 2018. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter ( link)
  • Generally Reliable--RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [2], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process: [3]. They are most well-known for their robust polling, which is published in numerous high-quality sources: The Guardian, Reuters, CNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, Real Clear Investigations also seems to be referenced by reliable sources such as The Washington Post and NPR. RCP & RCI aggregates from different sources, though they do seem to have their own columnists. News vs. opinion is always clearly marked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    • While it's an interesting offering, the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations. The existence of this review doesn't add a lot of credibility to their own content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Judge by WP:RSOPINION. RCP is mainly known as an American conservative-leaning news and poll aggregator. It is mainly used on Wikipedia for its election predictions, the same way we use the Daily Kos ( RSP entry) for its election predictions despite its unreliability. It also sees some use for its opinion pieces, which is usually appropriate depending on the identity of the opinion piece's author. Overall I don't think RCP publishes much straight news, if at all, so I would treat it as similar to Reason ( RSP entry), The Spectator ( RSP entry) or The Weekly Standard ( RSP entry). feminist (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    • As for this specific page, it appears to simply include transcripts of a video. Authenticity is not in doubt when you can actually listen to the video. But why not just cite Fox News directly? feminist (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - This is primarily an opinion site and partisan aggregator, not a reliable news source. It cannot reasonably be considered a RS. Go4thProsper ( talk) 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - Original material is not factually reliable, and aggregated material may not be accurately attributed. The Wall Street Journal has reported that RealClearPolitics for two years has been a significant source of links to Russia Today stories, and the provenance of the RT headlines was obscured. While much of the aggregated material may be reliable, it should be cited to the reliable source, not to RealClear. John M Baker ( talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy; a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel; and RS consider them reliable as evidenced by the fact their original reporting has been sourced by Reuters [4], Government Executive [5], Albuquerque Journal [6], CBS News [7], TIME [8], CNN [9] etc., etc. Both the current executive editor and the current White House correspondent are separate recipients [10], [11] of the Aldo Beckman Award for Journalistic Excellence from the White House Correspondents Association which is pretty much the Oscar for White House coverage and its recipient is elected by WHCA member journalists. If RC is not reliable, we need to rethink our standards of reliability.
    That said, stories that are simply aggregated by RCP are not implicitly reliable, opinion / commentary columns are not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the writer per WP:RSOPINION, and extraordinary claims should be credited to the source and not presented in WP's voice regardless of the reliability of the source (at least when reported only by a single source). Chetsford ( talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories. This family of websites is mainly opinion pieces and aggregation of pieces published elsewhere. As for their sites that claim to do original reporting, their "RealClearInvestigations" site is backed by right-wing foundations and published an article supposedly revealing the identity of a protected whistleblower—something that reputable/mainstream news organizations chose not to do, because it would endanger the whistleblower and violate anti-retaliation principles. And as the Wall Street Journal reported in Oct. 2020, the aggregator has consistently funneled readers to Russian propaganda, while obscuring the source from browsing readers. All of this points to clear unreliability. Neutrality talk 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The WSJ story you site describes RealClear as "mainstream" and their poll average as "famous." Furthermore, I am unaware of any requirement that an RS refrain from publishing the identity of a whistleblower. For comparison, is the NYT unreliable because they blew a CIA program to catch terrorists via their finances [12]? Obviously that put lives at risk. Meanwhile, the NYT, which routinely advocates for restrictions on oil drilling in the USA, is owned in considerable part by Carlos Slim, who obviously benefits from such restrictions. In sum, you are condemning RealClear for things we appear to accept from other sources. Adoring nanny ( talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for anything except perhaps its attributed polling averages (which seems to be the only thing it is really well-known for, looking over sources and usage, and which is probably better cited to a WP:SECONDARY source anyway.) Outside of that it is largely noteworthy as an aggregator; and there's no reason we would cite them rather than the sources they aggregate. For the (largely opinion) original stuff they do post, there seems to be little distinction between opinion and fact. More importantly, they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election and surrounding events recently, which is a definite strike against their reliability. Generally speaking I don't think it makes sense to use a handful of passing mentions as an argument for WP:USEBYOTHERS when the NYT just wrote an entire in-depth teardown essentially saying how unreliable it has become. EDIT: I would say that per the NYT source it is particularly unreliable after 2017 because of this: Interviews with current and former Real Clear staff members, along with a review of its coverage and tax filings, point to a shift to the right within the organization in late 2017, when the bulk of its journalists who were responsible for straight-news reporting on Capitol Hill, the White House and national politics were suddenly laid off. The shift to the right would be fine on its own, but firing their reporting team isn't. And that led to the other issues the article identifies - inaccurate coverage of the 2020 election, unsubstantiated or false stories, stories that raise ethical concerns, and so on. None of this sounds like the write-up of a source we could use as an WP:RS; it appears they gutted their news team sometime in 2017 and switched to basically pumping out spin, with increasing disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for the reasons explained by John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. They do seem to be known for polling averages more than anything else, which also leads to a WP:DUE concern; how often is a poll average, of which there are many, actually worth writing about? In that case, we'd be turning to secondary sources anyway, as Aquillion suggested. Less-than-stellar publications are sometimes the ones to "break" a story (because it was leaked to them, or because they were listening to the police scanner, or whatever). When more solid reporting confirms the story and mentions where it first appeared, that doesn't necessarily count in favor of the marginal publication's reliability for our purposes. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Exactly this. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards extramarital affair, but that doesn't mean the Enquirer is suddenly reliable either, all it means is a stopped clock happened to briefly coincide with the time of day. IHateAccounts ( talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    • How true. I subscribe to and follow over 4,000 journalists and media sources of all types, including the use of many Google Alerts, so I see what is written by the most unreliable of sources. For example, The Daily Caller often has "news" details that is cutting edge (IOW on the wrong side of the knife... Face-wink.svg), but those details are not yet found elsewhere, so I do not use TDC as a source or even mention those details. I wait until RS pick up the story. TDC will usually frame these interesting details in a misleading story that misleads its readers, and we shouldn't send readers to such trash. When the details appear in RS, the setting is more neutral and factual, and we can then use those sources as documentation of those interesting details. They now have the needed due weight and proper sourcing. So be patient and wait for RS to cover such stuff. -- Valjean ( talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable per User:Chetsford. Adoring nanny ( talk) 00:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Unreliable, completely, given their track record of demonstrably false claims, fringe opinion pieces and the like. One cannot even call it "reporting" anymore, given the mass layoffs of actual journalists in 2017. Zaathras ( talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment We have a lot of people declaring "not factually reliable" as an undemonstrated assertion. The standards for RS are the same as our general standards; if RS consider them reliable, they are reliable. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their original reporting is widely, and regularly cited by RS. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their journalists have received some of the most significant awards given by and from the journalistic craft. Unless we have RS widely declaring RC to be unreliable, our individual assessments of RC is irrelevant. So far only one source has been offered which sort-of hints at that; we don't blacklist an entire media outlet because of one false positive - otherwise we'd be non-RS'ing the New York Times over the Caliphate podcast scandal that just broke or Rolling Stone for A Rape on Campus. All other arguments appear to rely on personal analysis. Content analysis is research and personal content analysis is OR. A policy-based argument, supported by sources, has been offered demonstrating reliability. The same has not been offered demonstrating unreliability. Chetsford ( talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Is this really the standard? Then the assessment should also take into account reporting from the New York Times, which writes that, during the Trump administration, “Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president’s political opponents,” and that it ran “stories that most other news outlets, including some that lean conservative, would not touch because the details were unsubstantiated or publication of them would raise ethical concerns.” John M Baker ( talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, we definitely should take that into account. But taking a report about a source into account is different than giving that report veto power. As I said, above, the ability to find one or two instances of RS questioning a source should not be treated as some gotcha! reason to deprecate a source. If that were all it took, we would have no sources left. Here [13], WIRED reports "News organizations, including The New York Times, have reported the story without trying to get to the bottom of it, or even finding out basic information such as where or when the alleged party took place."; here [14] Rolling Stone is found liable for a demonstrably fake story; here [15] The Intercept writes that the Washington Post published a story about hacking that is "demonstrably false" . In each of these cases, we have far more evidence of RS considering the NYT, Rolling Stone, and WaPo reliable than unreliable. Similarly, as demonstrated in my !vote, the same applies to RCP. Chetsford ( talk) 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
        • But the New York Times article is not comparable to the claims that the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post published individual false stories (not that I think that the linked critiques of the NY Times and the Post are particularly compelling). Rather, the Times has provided an overall assessment of RCP's current reliability, and it has done so in terms that are utterly inconsistent with finding a source to be reliable. That should weigh far more heavily than individual examples where an established reliable source chose to refer to RCP uncritically. Nor do I think that the test of reliability should be the treatment given by reliable sources. If that were the case, we would certainly have to reinstate the Daily Mail, which just in the past few days has been cited by The Independent (Dec. 31, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020, again), The Sunday Telegraph (Dec. 27, 2020), and the Kansas City Star (Dec. 24, 2020), among others (all examples from NewsBank). The test should be whether a source is in fact reliable, based on reported facts, and not on whether media sources sometimes choose to use it without further examination. John M Baker ( talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
          • When sources considered reliable mention and provide an analysis of less reliable sources it's often useful to WP to support article content rather than using unreliable sources, but it doesn't mean that we should by extension consider those reliable (which is precisely why an independent interpretation of their claims is useful)... — Paleo Neonate – 00:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally discourage - especially if editors must determine the usable material from the obvious propaganda themselves. — Paleo Neonate – 00:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable per User:Chetsford with the RSOPINION restrictions feminist noted. I think I would consider much of their material analysis but absent a source directly contradicting them I would say it is usable in that capacity. Springee ( talk) 12:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's aggregation and partisan opinion content, so should be treated accordingly. So if we're talking about their original content then no, of course we shouldn't use it for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. unreliable), but there may be uses for attributed opinions of certain authors in exceptional cases (as usual, RSOPINION does not mean that every/any opinion carries WP:WEIGHT on its own, but it's possible there are uses for them). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable. There's been far too much of this fad for wholesale banning of sources via deprecation—it has the stench of political bias, smacks of censorship, and suggests editors are no longer able to judge reliability on a case-by-case basis. Deprecation is used to exclude purely factual, documented information. (Example: the NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake, and the only ones linking to the official police report—claims they're not "RS" was used to censor factual information.) These deprecation debates are little more than referenda asking: "Would you personally prefer if the source couldn't be used?" Saying RCP is "unreliable" because it accurately identified a "whistleblower" or linked to Russian articles is absurd. As to the claim that the same company had a "secret Facebook group sharing right-wing memes" is disqualifying, see the professor's quote about WSJ/Fox—then ask if false claims made by Amazon mean Bezos' WaPo should be deprecated. Broadly agree with User:Chetsford on this, especially that RCP has not been shown to publish false information, let alone routinely. Additionally, Lee Smith and others have done some very solid original investigative reporting for RCP. Elle Kpyros ( talk) 18:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories about "something something conservatives are being silenced" aren't a rational argument. "NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake" is pure lying hooey: it was fact-checked by reputable news agencies (such as USA Today [16] and Reuters [17]) that contradicted the lies the Daily Fail and NY Post were putting out. IHateAccounts ( talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. RealClearPolitics is described by reliable sources as "one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about (Trump's) political opponents". Specifically, RCP aggressively promoted the "stolen election" falsehood that fueled a failed attempt to overthrow the US government a week or so ago. So that's a hard no from me.

    It appears that the "serious news" staff of RCP was laid off en masse in 2017, and replaced by Republican political operatives ( [18]). Separately, of course, RCP has also published defamatory falsehoods (misidentifying the author of a high-profile anonymous op-ed), recycled and laundered Russian propaganda, outed a legally protected whistleblower, and so on—all in service of partisan ends, and all detailed here and elsewhere. Defending this source as reliable, in light of all this evidence to the contrary, is quite a stretch. Arguably, one could list it as "potentially reliable before 2017, unreliable afterwards", based on the staff turnover and shift in tone and focus.

    In any case, using a source known to publish defamatory falsehoods, reckless & unfounded partisan smears, election-related falsehoods, and foreign propaganda—as RCP is documented to do—is fundamentally a behavioral and competence issue. MastCell  Talk 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Reliable. Much of the website's content is labeled as opinion, and it is an aggregator, as many previous users have said. Many previous editors have focused on the opinion content on the site and its role as a poll aggregator, and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION. It should be noted, however, that the site publishes original polling data, that have been widely cited by other sources we trust as reliable, including NPR. Mikehawk10 ( talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable Just another partisan source. I think Wikipedia would be a better place without too partisan and opinion based sources. I absolutely don't think those who look at things from one side's perspective tend to have reputation for fact checking. Hence, I don't think it's a WP:RS. Magnus Dominus ( talk) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Magnus Dominus ( talkcontribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum ( talkcontribs).
  • Unreliable, and trying for deprecation - the conspiracy theory pushing suggests they've left tawdry conceptions of "factual reality" behind. Unfortunately, "factual reality" is where Wikipedia does its best to live, and so we can't follow RCP to where they're going - David Gerard ( talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. This subject is an opinion aggregator, mostly using reprints of articles which appeared in right-leaning sources. The NYT article linked above by User:MastCell demonstrates that whatever "non-partisan" credibility they tried to hold onto was lost in the "sudden right turn" after Trump's election. These days they are just another source parroting "stolen election" lies. BusterD ( talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable - We can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as long as they are used in a neutral way or with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable - not a matter of bias one way or the other, it's a matter of uncritically reporting falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable - as reliable in their political opinions as left-leaning sources like WaPo. We don't consider a source unreliable because we don't agree with their politics. Biased sources are acceptable. But like all online news sources in today's clickbait environment, we should exercise caution and use common sense. Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable now per MastCell et al, but I would probably say that pre-2017 content might be OK. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable for now. The source has published a few questionable stories relating to the 2020 elections, but its news offerings are on the whole reliable; it should be treated as a mainstream news source. This may change in the future if its bias gets more extreme and starts causing the facts to get distorted. Jancarcu ( talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable now (since at least 2020, and apparently since 2017), or at least "use caution", in light of their decision to ditch their reporting staff and shift from mere bias (which is OK, per WP:BIASEDSOURCES) into conspiracy-theory inaccuracies about several recent events, which I've seen and which MastCell and Aquillion go over above and which other RS called out, as noted above. -sche ( talk) 11:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable for news, reliable for sourced opinion, if attributed to it clearly. It might at this point ib time be the best source for its particular place in the spectrum of far-right opinion. The problem with extreme right sources is there is nothing to balance them with, for there are no equally wide-read truly left wing US sources as some of those on the right. The fact that far right sources mostly tell falsehoods is important, and the best way to establish it, is to quote them, not ignore them. There is, for example, no left wing equivalent in readership or influence as Fox. I'm not sure what might correspond to this one on the other side. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable – RealClear has frequently reported false information on many topics, usually in an effort to support the politics of Donald Trump. In the example citation given, it would make more sense for the cited source to be video or transcripts of Jeanine Pirro talking on Fox News. For example, " 'Criminal cabal' and Jeanine Pirro's other controversial statements". (It's preferable to obtain video directly from Fox News, rather than a montage of Pirro's comments edited together and posted on YouTube. This example shows that the video in question is available in some form and doesn't require the use of unreliable RealClear media.) -- Mr. Lance E Sloan ( talk) 20:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable RealClearInvestigations has boldly published stories where others refused to. They have been cited by other outlets and have high quality reporters. Nweil ( talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable now. As others have noted, RealClearPolitics has made a big shift into the fringe and is now completely unreliable as a source. :bloodofox: ( talk) 05:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable per John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliabe per comments above. SlackingViceroy ( talk) 15:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable propaganda vehicle funded by right-wing free market supporting billionaires and their ilk, via The Real Clear Foundation. Acousmana ( talk) 14:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable per Chetsford. — Wulf ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, they are frequently cited even by FiveThirtyEight, their main competitor. — Wulf ( talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable - I have seen no evidence of a systemic problem with facts presented by others commenting here. In fact, it appears a large portion of "unreliable" !votes are based on personal opinion as to the opinions - not the reporting. Unless concrete evidence of systematic fabrication is presented, there is no basis upon which to consider this unreliable. Not liking their opinions is not a reason to discount their facts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC: The Federalist

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Federalist?

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

NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (The Federalist)

  • Option 4 - I wish to propose that The Federalist be formally deprecated as a source due to its ongoing and unretracted promotion of false and seditious conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election. In this article, published on November 4, 2020, the site's "political editor," John Daniel Davidson, wrote that As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. He goes on to uncritically republish and promote a wide array of false conspiracy theories about the election, claiming that "vote dumps" in Wisconsin were part of a Democratic plot and that In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Note that these are statements of fact - the site's political editor declared, as fact, that there was a Democratic scheme to steal the election. The article closes with the unequivocal declaration that the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. As of today, the article remains on the site unretracted, uncorrected, and without a shred of notice that literally every single thing in the story is a half-truth, demonstrable falsehood, distortion, or outright lie, and that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. The Federalist cannot possibly stand in this light as a reliable source for any purpose, and even the opinions of its writers should be closely scrutinized for due weight - the weight which should be accorded to a site which continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen is quite arguably nil. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3: The Federalist is a bad source. There are fairly few cases, to say the least, where it should be used. However, the extreme step of deprecation should be reserved for the most extreme cases of abuse -- where a source is so blatantly awful that it doesn't even serve as reliable for self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact. The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity. Competence is required, and the sort of person who would need outright deprecation to avoid using the Federalist is quite likely a CIR failure in other respects. That said, it's certainly not anything above #3 -- its statements for things other than "self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact" are...wanting. Mark it as the bottom-tier rag it is, but I don't see the need for outright handholding. Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 The Election conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation. This is worse than the bad fact checking you would expect fron a source in group 3. The Federalist shoul therefore be deprecated. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 The evidence just seems overwhelming. I can't see any good reason to use a source that repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories. Loki ( talk) 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - Usable for attributed statements of opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. The situations in which it would be appropriate to use it for opinion will be few and far between, but in those situations we should allow it. Blueboar ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 A willingness to publish blatant falsehoods about one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the world means they have absolutely no right to be trusted. Of course, in the spring they were merrily publishing dangerous nonsense about COVID-19, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They'll publish anonymous opinions for clicks, and they will edit opinion columns to be more provocative, like changing "COVID-19" to "the Wuhan virus" [19]. That's not the kind of place we should go to even for published opinions. A year or two ago I might have been in the option 2 or 3 camp — the funding of the website was proverbially opaque (the question "Who funds The Federalist?" achieved meme status), the co-founder is a paid shill and plagiarist, etc. But now it's time to take a hard line. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Addendum I can understand the reluctance to deprecate a "source" that has only been invoked infrequently so far, but I can also see the value in nipping a problem in the bud. The point raised by Newslinger a few lines below about talk pages is a good one; why should we let the community's time be wasted? XOR'easter ( talk) 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That doesn't seem like a trustworthy source but I see that the Federalist is cited exactly 12 times in Wikipedia, including as the source for a claim that someone is writing for it. Are we trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist? Alaexis ¿question? 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    The Federalist's website has been linked from 195 article talk pages. Discussions such as Talk:GameStop short squeeze § Yellen, in which an editor insists that The Federalist is reliable for a controversial claim about a living person because consensus (such as the consensus that would result from this RfC) has not yet been documented, sap editor time and effort even if the source is ultimately excluded from the article. —  Newslinger  talk 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    There were several more, but I already removed the worst and most obvious uses prior to opening this RfC - I realized there was nothing stopping anyone from coming along and reverting me on the grounds that there's "no consensus" it's unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't realise that simple search doesn't search in the source text. Alaexis ¿question? 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Make that over 200 in article space. – dlthewave 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Obvious pusher of conspiracy theories is obvious. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2- This is just a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. As of this writing, it appears (emphasis mine) hardly sounds like a statement of fact. As other have pointed out, the source is rarely used anyway, but I don't see any reason it can't be used with attribution.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • This fails to engage with the substance of the claims - that it has a history of fabrication and conspiracy theories. I asked below about these claims, and you're pretending they don't exist. This does not instill confidence (and doesn't address the deprecation). I most note that this is not a vote - if you can't provide a reason of substance why it's actually a good source, rather than claiming a conspiracy to suppress a poltical view, then your opinion doesn't address the question, and would properly be ignored in a policy-based assessment of consensus - David Gerard ( talk) 00:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I stand by my previous statement "it appears" is not a statement of fact. The article in question also was written on November 4 when explanations for some of these oddities mentioned in the article still were not provided (ie. Antrim County) and when official explanations were provided the author noted them. The facts presented about Pennsylvania in this article about changing of election laws still remain true, although it has since been shown late mail-in ballots were not numerous enough to change the result of the election (something which was clearly unknown on Nov 4).-- Rusf10 ( talk) 05:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The fact is that there are consequences for selling your soul to QAnon trollery in a bad-faith effort to gin up clicks with outright lies about the election. There are any number of conservative outlets which affirmatively chose a different path, and chose not to stoke the flames of sedition. The Federalist chose to feed credulous dupes a manufactured series of easily-discredited falsehoods specifically designed to cast doubt upon the results of a free and fair election. This could have had no other intended effect but to foment outrage and hatred, and it led to one of the most embarrassing and dangerous spectacles in modern American history. The Federalist chose poorly, and choices have consequences. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
          • @ NorthBySouthBaranof:That's just not true. The Federalist did not promote QANON, I am 100% sure of this. In fact, it called it a "conspiracy theory" here, here here, here and roughly 10 other articles.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 02:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
            • Then why did they pander to those same credulous dupes by publishing obvious falsehoods about the 2020 election, stoking irrational fear and hatred for the purpose of generating clicks and ultimately generating a violent insurrection? The answer is that like every other part of the Trumpist media ecosystem, they feared being insufficiently Trumpist. They could have simply explained the facts - that more people voted for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. They chose poorly, and again, choices have consequences. As I explained below, the Trumpist conspiracy ecosystem cannot be neatly separated - your party wove a tangled web of lies and is now caught in the trap. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm trying to assume good faith here, but which your choice of language makes it very difficult. First, your party, really? You don't know if I'm a registered Republican or not (and I'm not). Second, raising questions oddities in election results is not the same thing as publishing obvious falsehoods and claiming that The Federalist was responsible for ultimately generating a violent insurrection is something you really should strike. Here's a interesting article about the election that as far as I know contains factual content, doesn't prove anything other than this election was one of the strangest in history (I hope we can at least agree on that point). Also, note that the article which has plenty of citations, mentions a correction which disproves another claim you made that The Federalist doesn't issue corrections. I think most reasonable people would wonder how these results occurred, though not necessarily reject them. Bottom line is you've made several false claims in this RFC (apparently because you did not do your research first) and The Federalist which is mostly an opinion source (see WP:BIASED is far more creditable than you have portrayed it.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 07:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
                • I never said The Federalist doesn't issue corrections, I said the article I linked above which falsely states that Democrats stole the election has neither been retracted nor corrected. Which is true.
                • That link is not an "interesting article" at all - indeed, it's a hilariously obvious dog whistle to the idea that the election was stolen. There was nothing particularly strange about this election, actually. Lots of people voted, all their votes were fairly and accurately counted, and 8 million more Americans voted for Joe Biden, flipping five states. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • David Gerard is entirely correct here. It is inappropriate to use this page as a forum for speculating on the imagined motivations of other editors. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor (an I apologize if it was taken that way), but it seems to be a trend here. Just look at how many recent RFCs involve right-leaning sources.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 05:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Again, it's not Wikipedia's problem that a number of "right-leaning sources" chose to openly and notoriously discredit themselves as reliable sources by publishing patently-obvious lies about the 2020 United States presidential election. Policy demands that we base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a source chooses to destroy its own reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that choice has consequences. If you think there are any "left-leaning sources" which have published similar lies about the 2020 election, please point them out because they should be deprecated too. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • You say: To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor - but this RFC was brought by an individual editor, and your own words above claim their action was a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. This is clearly and directly a claim about the motive of a particular editor, and it's nonsensical to claim you somehow didn't say what you literally said, right there, just above. And you still have not addressed the substance of the claims - David Gerard ( talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
          • David, with all due respect, I have addressed the substance of the claims. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't tell me I haven't addressed them. In fact, the editor who brought the RFC made an easily disprovable claim that this source is pushing QANON conspiracy theories which he has neither responded to or retracted. Does that matter to you?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 06:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
            • "The election was stolen by Democrats" is a conspiracy theory clearly linked to QAnon amid an atmosphere where Trump's base repeatedly rejected reality in favor of a constructed fantasyworld where Trump was actually popular, COVID was a hoax, racism no longer exists, a "deep state undercover agent" posting on an anonymous imageboard is giving you the real inside scoop, and the only way Republicans could lose elections is if Democrats cheat. All of this ridiculous nonsense is of a piece, and we don't have to pretend otherwise. Trump sold lies to credulous dupes, and The Federalist chose to pander to those credulous dupes rather than tell the harder truth that lawn signs and boat parades signify nothing. Your own house organs sabotaged their own credibility, and you have no one but yourselves to blame. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
              • You're still pushing the absolutely false claim that the Federalist promotes QANON, when I have proven that they've denounced it multiple times over a period of two years. Just stop, QANON has absolutely nothing to do with this source. I don't know where you get your news from, but you are so misinformed it is incredible. While, I do not have the time to fact check every claim you just made. I'll start with your first one. The very fact that 74 million people voted for Trump (more than the 68 million that voted for Obama) actually does prove he was popular. That was so easy, I'll do one more. COVID was a hoax Trump never said this and here's a fact check from PolitiFact (which is not a conservative source). Ask PolitiFact: Are you sure Donald Trump didn’t call the coronavirus a hoax? -- Rusf10 ( talk) 08:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    Rusf10, Wikipedia rejects sources that publish nonsense, regardless of political leaning. We deprecated Occupy, for example. It is undoubteldy true that there is an asymmetric polarisation in US media, with right-wing sources more likely to weigh ideological Truth above objective fact, leading to the drift of previously centre-right sources to the extremes. There are entire books about this (e.g. Network Propaganda).
    The idea that this singles out conservative voices, though, is as false as the idea that banning racists targets conservatives. There's nothing conservative about racism or counterfactual bullshit. Rather the opposite, in fact. But the far right has stolen the label "conservative" for itself, and genuinely conservative voices are now drowned out by the chorus of howler monkeys and grifters.
    Just look at Fox, promoting Big Lie proponent Maria Bartiromo and firing Chris Stirewalt. It's not "Wikipedia that's "cancelling" conservative voices, it's the right-wing media, removing sincere conservatives and replacing them with extremists. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not going to have this debate with you. You've made your political leanings very clear in the past and any objective person would classify you unmistakably left-of-center. The problem here isn't your political beliefs, its that you believe that your left-leaning views are actually centrist, so actual centrist/moderate views become conservative to you and conservatives are now the "far right".-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per OP and XOR'easter. This seems like an uncontroversial call. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I took a deep look at their early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic about six months ago and was appalled at the disinformation bilge that I found there. Their coverage of Trump's 2020 defeat was, if anything, worse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    If early coverage of COVID-19 is the barometer, then wouldn't we be depreciating CNN and Washpo, to name two? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Has anyone shown the fact that this source isn't deprecated to be a problem? Where are the examples of editors coming to this board to argue for/against the use of a particular Federalist article? Unless we can show that not deprecating this source is harming Wikipedia we should not deprecate. Springee ( talk) 12:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 for historical articles, 3, or 4 for their recent pieces. Historically, the Federalist was fairly sane, and provided right-wing commentary that wasn't completely off the wall. However, their recent coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was completely contrary to what scientific consensus was, and that alone should be worth relegating them to wp:SELFSOURCE to back up claims that conservatives have claimed X. BrxBrx( talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Please be more specific - at what point was it good, and what is the evidence that it was good at this time? - David Gerard ( talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi David Gerard, and thank you for replying. I was thinking mostly of descriptors like the following: [20], in 2014, Bloomberg spoke rather approvingly of the outlet as a right-wing source, or at least respectably. Then there's politico comparing it to a tory huffpo [21] - for what it's worth, the huffington post is considered reliable for non-political topics at wp:RSP. Naturally, this was well before they fell off the deep end with the Trump administration, IMHO. Warmest regards, BrxBrx( talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4; according to NewsGuard, the site has no credibility whatsoever and scores a 12.5/100 for its false, misleading misinformation. Would probably even suggest blacklisting the URL while you are at it. Aasim ( talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for conspiracy theories, COVID misinformation and blithe willingness to lie for clicks. That even its supporters appear unable to refute these issues with the publication, and instead resort to claiming a conspiracy theory about Wikipedia editors who dare to bring the serious content issues to RSN, suggests there are in fact not satisfactory answers to these issues - David Gerard ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Routine conspiracy theories, false reporting, and other misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Option 2 No corrections policy that I can find, and also no record of correcting stories that turn out to be wrong. But a grand total of 12 uses in Wikipedia is not worth deprecating. And I haven't seen anything from them as outrageous as something like this [22]. Adoring nanny ( talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @ Adoring nanny:They actually do make corrections. Here are a few examples: 1 2 3 4 5-- Rusf10 ( talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. Moved my vote from option 3 to option 2 based on it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I don't know about their Covid reporting, but the stuff i've researched on there seems factual. They have their spin of course and the titles aren't great. Just checked their site and it's good they are reporting about the lifesite youtube channel being banned. Earlier today i was looking for the story and it was only on the actual lifestyle site, so they might pick up stories otherwise missed. Fred ( talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 just general hooey and unreliability. 777burger user talk contribs 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Don't see the need for the drastic step of deprecation, but the falsehoods it has published is enough for it to be classified as generally unreliable. Zoozaz1 talk 03:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3, unfortunately. I do read them sometimes and do think there's a place for their contrarianism, despite being very far away from them on the political spectrum. They have done real reporting which has been better than the dead-eyed nihilism of Sean Davis's twitter feed (likely for many people their first exposure to the website) might indicate. However, that difference has declined and they're basically Radio Trump now. Blythwood ( talk) 11:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 4 or 3, given the repeated instances of publishing false and fabricated information, as noted by OP above and by David Gerard in the Discussion section below. -sche ( talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4, just look at this stuff. This should be kept as far away from sourcing for articles as possible. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 06:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. The source cannot be trusted for reliable information. I'm hesitant to fully deprecate, however, because there could be some value to their opinion pieces. -- Calidum 16:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 - let's be realistic - there were different conspiracy theories going back & forth on both sides throughout Trump's term - we've endured 4 years of clickbait media on steroids over party politics including 2 impeachments in a Democrat-controlled House, and 2 acquittals in a Republican-controlled Senate. Left-leaning sources sensationalized the impeachments while right leaning sources downplayed them. The side that downplayed it turned out to be correct - he was acquitted - and its the same song, second verse with the Russian collusion conspiracy theories, yet the conservative sources were downgraded, not liberal sources. We've endured boatloads of speculation, sensationalism, and just plain ole political rhetoric in all of our news sources - not one of them stayed in the dugout for that game. If you downgrade this source, then downgrade them all because they all played the same clickbait political game to their respective political demographics. As for the OP's reasons for wanting to deprecate - let's go back in time - read this article, and let's deprecate all of the sources who promoted the Democrat's belief that Bush stole the election. That's how silly it all looks with retrospect. Atsme 💬 📧 23:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    Atsme, Trump was impeached the first time because he tried to shake down the Ukrainian government for electoral advantage, and the second time because he incited an insurrection because he could not tolerate the fact that he lost the election. Mitch McConnell voted to acquit, but only because Trump had already left office: he was entirely clear that Trump incited the insurrection. Russian collusion is extensively documented in the Mueller report, and calling it "conspiracy theories" undermines any claim on your part to be able to analyse or comment on this area. Read pages 4 and 5, for starters:
    The comparison of 2016 and 2020 with 2004 is indeed informative. With Bush v. Gore, a conservative Supreme Court consciously picked a winner, but in 2004 Bush actually won the popular vote - the only Republican popular vote victory since 1988. A handful of people rejected that (and continue to do so). Compare that with a supermajority of Republicans in the House, and at least ten Senators, who reject the facts of the 2020 election. After 2004 no serious commentator on the left continued to promote the false claim that Kerry won. Find me popular Democratic publications that continued to claim Kerry won post 2004. It was a well understood rallying round the flag. After 2020, though, Fox started purging anyone who admitted that Biden won. Your own example disproves your point.
    All media does indeed try to attract eyeballs, but research shows that mainstream and partisan media do it in different ways. Mainstream media (remember, mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not of conservative) has a fact-checking dynamic and suffers reputationally if it leaves factual error uncorrected. Partisan media suffers if it contradicts the partisan narrative. If CNN publishes a false story that chimes with a Democratic narrative, they suffer a reputational hit, and if The Five promote a fact that contradicts conservative Truth they will suffer. We can see this in practice: if Maddow goes off the deep end, people switch to the more accurate CNN. If Fox broadcasts facts, people switch to the more extreme OANN or NewsMax. So the right-wing partisan media has moved further to the right over the last five years and has become less accurate as it has done so.
    There's significant academic study around this. It's been pointed out to you many times. Guy ( help! - typo?) 10:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    You have a very stong opinion about US politics, and have made that quite clear. You tend to side with left-leaning media & academia because they align with your POV, and that has been pointed out to you many times - nothing wrong with that, we're only human. But what concerns me most is the fact that you are not accepting that Trump was acquitted of the charges that led to his impeachment, and you keep bringing up unsubstantiated information about his guilt. Explain to me how your position now is not unlike what some people are doing who keep harping on and on that the 2020 election was rigged? It appears to me that you choose, inadvertently or otherwise, to read only those sources that agree with your opinion, rather than reading for the opposition, which is how we arrive at a NPOV. It's not easy to swallow material one doesn't believe in from a perspective one opposes, but we must remain neutral. I'm a pragmatist, Guy, regardless of how you see me. My concern is that you see any editor who doesn't agree with you as being wrong, and that is not how WP works relative to NPOV. I align very closely with Jimmy Wales in the following regard:
    1. in a BLP we "should not become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject."
    2. Relative to US politics: "Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must."
    3. And finally sources: "It is true that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited as a source, but in Wikipedia terminology that does not mean an absolute ban. Exceptions to the general rule can and do exist, per WP:IAR as well as general common sense in specific circumstances."
    I choose to base my findings on actual facts not opinions, and I tend to trust my 35+ years as a media professional when researching clickbait, sensationalism and propaganda vs factual news as presented to us by the various echo chambers, most of which is now owned by mega-corporations. It's not your father's or grandfather's 5:00 news anymore. My views on this matter are well supported in mainstream despite some of the attempts to sidestep the facts by spin masters. Most people use Google as their search engine, and so do I for the most part, but I also use different search engines, and various other methods to make sure my research is corroborated (verifiable), factual and well-covered by reliable sources. When biased RS are involved, I force myself to read all of what they publish - it's second nature with me because of my former profession. As a retiree, I have the time to dig deep enough to uncover the facts and corroborate them so I can make a sound determination that is compliant with NPOV, not a particular POV but NPOV. When two sources don't align with my POV, I don't jump up and declare that source to be unreliable based on it's political position or views. I subscribe to WaPo, NYTimes, and various other online news sources, and I follow academia - not just the ones who align with my POV, especially when dealing with politics.
    It is a straight-up fact that Trump was impeached twice by the House. What some tend to dismiss, or do not give proper weight to per NPOV is the fact that he was acquitted by the Senate both times. And in the grand scheme of things, the outcome of that impeachment is what carries the most weight, not the fact that the opposition is pissed over it. I will probably agree with alot of what you believe off-wiki, but my pragmatic approach while I'm here writing articles, and what WP expects of us is NPOV, and that is what guides me. It's just that simple. Atsme 💬 📧 15:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 as per Atsme and the usage mentioned in the discussion. I respectfully disagree with Atme's assertion that the second acquittal of Trump was in a Republican-controlled Senate, but that seems to be their own view and not The Federalists, so does not affect my vote. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 per Atsme. As explained, there have been other cases of similar theories of election stealing. This one doesn't require it's own special treatment. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 15:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    Willbb234, for who among us has forgotten the Washington Riots of January 2004, when, after months of increasingly inflammatory rhetoric, John Kerry sent a mob of supporters to storm the Capitol and overturn the election he lost. That totally happened, right? Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The harassment of users who dare defend a conservative source continues. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 11:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Unacceptable WP:ASPERSION and dispute personalization, — Paleo Neonate – 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 their disinformation campaigns around COVID and election conspiracies are without a doubt enough to label them unreliable, and the intent behind them pushes it into deprecation territory. Shadybabs ( talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Agree the source should not be used but we don't need to deprecate every single unreliable source we stumble upon. Considering it's cited so infrequently as stated above I do not think we need to deprecate it. funplussmart ( talk) 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Saying that it appears is plainly a statement of fact and is unambiguously false, and sources publish unambiguously false things - especially such high-profile ones - should be depreciated, especially given that this is part of a longer history of posting similarly false things about eg. COVID-19. Atsme's assertion that there are comparable WP:RSes that spread conspiracy theories in 2004 is breathtakingly wrong - if found, any such sources should absolutely and unequivocally be depreciated (unless there is substantial reason to think they have changed since then, and even then we'd need to be cautious of anything from that era), but I note that Atsme has not named a single such source. "Everyone posts conspiracy theories about elections sometimes" is an unthinkably terrible thing to use in an WP:RS discussion - and if it's true, then we need to stop using all such sources, rather than using it as an argument to use sources that publish false or fabricated material. @ Atsme:, please provide specific sources that are currently considered WP:RS (or at least ambiguous) that you feel have advocated similar conspiracy theories, or strike your comment. I note that the one source you linked roundly rejects them and characterizes them as WP:FRINGE, which disproves your own assertion. It directly says ”And those who believed that the election had been stolen got no help from the mainstream press, where even left-leaning outlets wouldn’t take up the idea of a vast web of fraud. In The Nation, Alexander Cockburn was caustically dismissive: “As usual, the conspiracy nuts think plans of inconceivable complexity worked at 100 percent efficiency, that Murphy’s law was once again in suspense and that 10,000 co-conspirators are all going to keep their mouths shut.” Of course there's a constant political haze of misinformation surrounding elections, but we don't rely on "conspiracy nuts" that are known for pushing it, and depreciate them if people insist on trying to use them - Steven Freeman, who felt in his bones that the 2004 election was stolen, is not a reliable source for anything. The Federalist has similarly placed itself in that category. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
      • well... Steven Freeman is reliable as a primary source for the views of Steven Freeman. NOW, whether any given article should mention Freeman’s views is a valid question... but it is one of DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. A primary source is ALWAYS reliable for itself. Blueboar ( talk) 23:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Aquillion - first of all, saying that it appears is not a statement of fact. There is a big difference between it appears and it is. Things can take on an appearance and that is not a false statement. Keep in mind, every conspiracy begins with a theory, and circumstantial evidence is based on what things appear to be. Your accusations against me speak volumes, particularly the ridiculous statement that comparable WP:RSes that spread conspiracy theories in 2004 is breathtakingly wrong. You were joking, right? Start here and do your own research. I simply don't have the time or the inclination to do it for you. There are also plenty of sources for you to examine at 2004 United States election voting controversies. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 00:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The piece ends with the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest - this is obviously, patiently false. And it is equally absolutely, unequivocally false that there were WP:RSes advocating conspiracy theories about the 2004 (I'm baffled that you continue to double down on such a plainly unsupportable point despite failing to turn up even the slightest shred of evidence to back your claim.) In fact, did you even read the paper you linked me to? This paper specifically says that mainstream coverage, even on the left, immediately accepted the outcome as legitimate; the only conspiracy theories it cites are from random contacts with individuals and unnamed websites on the fringes (implied further down to be blogs) - obviously not WP:RSes. If you disagree, then be specific, don't keep linking to vague sources that disprove your point - you implied that there were sources we now consider WP:RS that advocated conspiracy theories about the 2004 election. Well, give me a specific source, and link me to a specific situation where they said something comparable to this. I would love to mark those sources as depreciated or unreliable; we shouldn't be using sources that publish outright falsehoods. But what we absolutely cannot do is allow WP:RS to become a race to the bottom, especially with vague handwavy "everybody does it!" statements like yours. It would be bad enough to have a reliability race to the bottom against actual, concrete examples, but to do it against this vaguely-defined cloud of conspiratorial thinking is plainly a recipe for disaster. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you going to suggest deprecating New York Magazine and the Washington Post for saying the same things? — Wulf ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Would not surprise me with how this noticeboard is turning out. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 18:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 i.e. oppose deprecation. The Federalist is a significant voice on the Republican right and is therefore usable as opinion. But it is a source for opinion, not for fact. As far as I know, the Daily Mail publishes minimal opinion. feminist (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 with reluctance and surprise. I came in here ready to !vote Option 3, however, my standard first check is to see if RS reference the source. As I've repeatedly said here, we cannot undertake independent textual analysis of any source to determine its reliability. Our only standard (with a small number of exceptions) is if RS think the source is reliable. The most cursory of checks finds its original reporting recently sourced by [23] , KIRO-TV [24], The Guardian [25], NBC News [26], and others. Since it also has a physical personality by which it can be held legally liable for what it publishes and the appearance of a gatekeeping process, I am only left with my personal, independent analysis to justify a !vote below Option 2, and Wikipedians - including me - are not competent to undertake independent textual analysis of sources. Obviously WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford ( talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    I clicked through the examples and they're trivial--the sort of thing where the Federalist was the first to report something that happened on the right (like Hawley's new book deal), so sources reporting on it are obliged to credit the Federalist. Against that are the examples above of the Federalist trading in election and COVID conspiracy theories. There's a real difference in magnitude here that requires further explication. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, comments like The Tyranny of Big Tech will now be published by Regnery, a conservative press, in a deal first reported by the Federalist, a rightwing outlet (from the Guardian) are typical when a low-quality source is technically the first to "break" a story. They don't really contribute to the respectability of the low-quality source; for example, they could be first because it was deliberately leaked to them in order to reach their audience for PR purposes. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. It has got markedly worse since the runup to the 2020 US election, and now peddles the Big Lie with abandon. It'sa important to draw a distinction between factual sources with some opinion content, and opinion sources. The Federalist is not a factual source. Its content is all opinion - either a straight retelling of opinion from elsewhere (e.g. the repetition of the lies told from the Odal Rune Stage at CPAC this week) or opinion by its own contributors. We should never be using The Federalist as a source of fact. With the current levels of COVID and election conspiraciost nonsense, we should also raise a very high bar to its use as a primary source for comment: if we want to describe the opinions they publish, then do it based on third party reporting. Guy ( help! - typo?) 09:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 - The promotion of COVID-19 conspiracy theories does it for me. Sorry, it's one thing to be biased, but this is medical information that could save lives. Any source has to be reliable for what it says, it what it says can't be trusted as a matte of course it is not an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3, leaning 4 Pure opinion that frequently veers into literal fake news, especially with health care and election topics. Zaathras ( talk) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4: I've thought this was missing from RSP for a while as an obvious "red or worse" listing. I would have initially thought option 3 but the conspiracy theories around the 2020 U.S. election and COVID-19 pandemic are completely disqualifying from taking this website seriously on anything. — Bilorv ( talk) 00:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Peddling falsehoods and conspiracy theories about the two biggest issues of the past year in the US (COVID-19 and the election) should totally disqualify a source as RS. NightHeron ( talk) 17:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. You can find good and bad in it, but as far as The Federalist is concerned we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. It certainly shouldn't be used for factual claims, but no one has presented any evidence that the Federalist falsifies the opinions of its contributors. If a person's opinion is relevant to the article, and that opinion has been published in the Federalist, then the Federalist is an acceptable source to report that opinion. The extra step of complete deprecation is unnecessary. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 22:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Seems like a clear call. :bloodofox: ( talk) 22:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 The conspiracy theories around the covid-19 and the election fraud says it all. Sea Ane ( talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. The Federalist has repeatedly promoted both the stolen election conspiracy theory (see articles with the "election fraud" tag, per Elliot321) and COVID-19 conspiracy theories (per XOR'easter, Chillabit, and others), thus crossing the threshold for deprecation. —  Newslinger  talk 06:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per NorthBySouthBaranof, XOR'easter and David Gerard. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 a partisan organ of opinion that is widely noted for its conspiracy theories. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per its publication of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the wake of the 2020 US presidential election. Grnrchst ( talk) 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. The evidence presented clearly shows that this source repeatedly published false and fabricated information and promotes conspiracy theories. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2, by the reasoning given by User:Atsme Kenosha Forever ( talk) 20:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per Newslinger. Chompy Ace 21:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 propaganda vehicle funded by right-wing free market supporting billionaires and their ilk, via FDRLST Media Foundation. Acousmana ( talk) 14:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2 per Atsme and Chetsford. RS:OPINION definitely applies here, as the source does not differentiate between news and opinion articles. See, for example, three articles about Edward Snowden all published in December: Edward Snowden Is A Hero Who Deserves a Full Pardon by Jordan Schachtel, Edward Snowden Isn’t A Hero And Doesn’t Deserve A Presidential Pardon by Alex Plitsas, and Rand Paul: President Trump Should Pardon Edward Snowden by… Senator Rand Paul). Additionally, their content is frequently featured in the Wall Street Journal’s Notable & Quotable and Best of the Web sections. — Wulf ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - I grew up with The Federalist being a standard conservative publication that I read fairly often, but their readership and standards have long since changed and the willingness to publish mistruths and conspiracies. Those preferring option 1 or 2 above have not convinced me of that at all. That said, I don't know that this rises to the Daily Mail level and my reading of the relevant policies/the DM RfC doesn't get me there. Alyo ( chat· edits) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4, not terribly opposed to #3. They have outed themselves by perpetuating knowingly-false election fraud propaganda. Whatever past credibility they once had as classic conservatives with at least a reputation for honesty has ben shot. ValarianB ( talk) 19:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    Is this an option 4 then, or an option 1 for historical content and option 3 for more recent content? Your vote says one thing, but your reasoning says another. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    Um, no, I said nothing of the sort. Don't project your own biases upon me, please. The Federalist has become a dumpster fire of purposefully fake news of late, I only have a slight hesitation of putting them all the way down at the bottom of said dumpster alongside the Daily Mail. ValarianB ( talk) 03:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    past credibility they once had as classic conservatives with at least a reputation for honesty -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 and acknowledge its bias. If we deprecate every source that praises President Trump and what he stands for, challenges COVID germophobia, and/or questions the legitimacy of the 2020 election, but fail to deprecate all of the left wing sources, it's time to deprecate WP:NPOV as well because nearly all right wing sources do those three things. That said, there's certain things it should be used for, because it is biased in favor of the right. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4, but as has been said, kind of okay with option 3 as well. I go back and forth, because it certainly used to be a reliable source, and took a recent decided nosedive. I predict it will pull itself back together, but as it stands right now there's little evidence of that. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 has there been any left-leaning sources rated as unreliable by RS/N yet? Or is this a personal collection of left-leaning activists that dominate this site anyways. Wp:Cabals is totally a conspiracy theory. ( talk) 22:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Left-leaning sources are rated as unreliable when they are, for example The Canary was rated as unreliable a few days ago, the Daily Star was deprecated last year, Occupy Democrats was deprecated in 2018. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Also Alternet, Daily Kos, and the Palmer Report are not acceptabe sources. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, but irrelevant. The issue is not political lean, but reliability. The Federalist is not a reliable source of fact, it is a political activist site designed and intended to sway opinion. Guy ( help! - typo?) 12:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Of course it involves political lean but not always. I don't want want to bust anybody's bubble but no news source in today's clickbait enviroment is flawless - they took a little more care when it involved printing. It's easy to find the mistakes and misinformation reported by MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC and you'll see plenty, not counting that which was whisked away from public view after they got caught; most was simply ignored. You can start with this list, Rachel Maddow, oh, and Bob Dylan is still alive, and so is Tom Petty, MSNBC misidentifies the race of a suspect, Joy Reid under fire for false election claims, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell retracts and apologizes for thinly sourced Trump finances story. CBS fired 4 executives, and most recent is is the 60 minutes controversy. Hopefully, my point has been made so I don't have to go back and add the links to demonstrate how The NYTimes kept a fake reporter employed for 4 years and had to return a Pulitzer, and also WaPo had to return a Pulitzer for a different fake story. Atsme 💬 📧 17:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Atsme and Chetsford. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 02:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Federalist)

  • Previous discussion from 2019 indicates similar problems with deliberate promotion of conspiracy theories by the Federalist. Here's some 2018 promotion of conspiracy theories: [27]. The site has promoted COVID-19 conspiracy theories [28]; a former contributor called the Federalist a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health" [29]. If advocates have any excuses to offer for this history of fabrication and deliberate misinformation, that would be useful to hear - otherwise this looks very deprecable - David Gerard ( talk) 12:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Covid conspiracy theory, how is it different from all the newspapers that said that masks are mostly needed for people working with patients [30]? This was an article from April 2020 when we knew little about covid and even expert opinion fluctuated a lot. Do you have other examples (I haven't voted yet)? Alaexis ¿question? 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The Federalist is political, thus their takes will draw ire from the opposing side and will definitely lead to comments like found in the New Yorker. One cannot make a good judgement based on those alone, otherwise it were possible to kill the 'reliable source' stateus of any smaller media by an astroturfing campaign. It is also important to separate opinion from reporting - the New Yorker source is based on pieces in the Federalist that appear as opinion to me. You should not use opinion as a reliable source of anything else than the opinion itself, but it cannot overtly be used to discredit a publication. The better publications sometimes publish disclaimers stating the opinion they publish is not the official one of the publication. It would be odd, though to require this method for any take that somebody could consider controversial. -- ( talk) 12:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This is actually a good point: The Federalist is a political opinion publication. That alone is sufficient for it to be unreliable as a source of fact, and this is reinforced when the political opinions are so often counterfactual (as with their views on COVID and the 2020 election). We should never use it. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • David Gerard, "It’s worth considering, however, whether the Trumpiest intellectuals are about to face their reckoning with the novel coronavirus."
    Predictably, no they didn't. They will roll out of the pandemic with their delusions entirely unshaken, like creationists faced with a tiktaalik and still demanding a crocoduck. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There is this usage of the editor by the BBC, alongside usage of university professors. [31] -- -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the "political editor" being on a podcast translates to the website being reliable. People get chosen for panels, interviewed on TV, etc., for all sorts of reasons, sometimes just because they're visible. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      They were picked by the professional journalist " Ritula Shah", presumably as one of the experts. I have not actually listened to it, so there is a small chance that Davidson was not actually on the expert panel. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
      Emir of Wikipedia, the BBC has also interviewed David Icke. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      Was he put on the same level as university professors though? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 19:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Similar can be said about every single news source at one time or another. We should not be downgrading entire sources based on biased views during a small window of time based on political biases. It is unacceptable from both my perspective and that of WP:RS, and yes, RS and NPOV are where views align closest. Atsme 💬 📧 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Per the link to our own article on this source which XOR'easter provided earlier up-thread, I'd like to note one sort of information The Federalist was publishing last spring: "It published a piece by someone identified as a physician in Oregon who recommended that people hold "chickenpox"-style parties for the coronavirus to build herd immunity, but the recommendations were contrary to those of public health experts, and the author in question did not have a medical license...". One source mentioning this: NYT. I would venture to say this was even worse misinformation than more recent insinuations regarding masks, vaccines, and the origins of COVID-19, as it specifically advised people to go out and get infected. I actually would not have expected this level of misinfo, but there it is in black and white. -- Chillabit ( talk) 19:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You are using the term misinformation is an inappropriate way. The author is question is indeed an experienced (yet retired) physician and his recommendations were rooted in established methods of treatment (Controlled Voluntary Infection). Experts can disagree and ultimately the CDC or whatever agency produces recommendations. But proposing alternative methods of treatment, especially in such a chaotic and unprecedented health crisis, is not to be frowned upon. Nweil ( talk) 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This paper seems to do with the ethical considerations, not the empirical ones. The official recommendations from the time don't exactly come out of nowhere, it's out of an abundance of caution in reaction to a situation you recognize as chaotic, and one which we didn't quite have the data yet to fully understand. -- Chillabit ( talk) 07:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
That piece did not actually recommend “that people hold ‘chickenpox’-style parties for the coronavirus”. Rather, it suggested that the government consider establishing controlled infection and quarantine centers. It is not true that it “specifically advised people to go out and get infected”. — Wulf ( talk) 21:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ??? Just many of these types of articles are needed to substantiate the fact that there are plenty of mainstream news sources that consensus has determined to be RS despite the skeletons in their closets? Just wondering... Atsme 💬 📧 01:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    Just look at the below RFC about the Canary, which is more biased and more false, yet on Wikipedia, it's not as evil as a conservative news source. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    The Canary is certainly biased. It's difficult to say more biased than The Federalist given the sources have very different biases and primarily cover different markets, but they are certainly both more biased than average. On the basis of the evidence provided though, "more false" is certainly incorrect - The Canary has not been proven to repeatedly promote completely debunked conspiracy theories after they have been debunked. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I just read the article that NorthbySouthBaronof cited in his iVote - and yes, the headline is sensationalistism but they all do it, and there's bias mixed with spin but they all do it. The article ended with the following: Unless election officials in Michigan and Wisconsin can explain the overnight vote-dumps and, in Michigan, the “typo” that appeared to benefit Biden, and Pennsylvania officials can explain their rationale for counting ballots with no postmark, the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. Was there a follow-up? Regardless, that article is opinion journalism mixed with facts and they all do it. If that's the reason for downgrading this source, then downgrade them all because they all do the same thing except with a different bias and spin because they are writing for their demographics. The main difference is whether they spin right or left. I think people who align with the left can readily see the bias in articles that lean right and vice versa. Bias is not a reason to deprecate or downgrade a RS. That is an IDONTLIKEIT reason, and has nothing to do with CONTEXT or the reliability of a source. The author John Daniel Davidson is a credible journalist, and has had his work published in the WSJ, National Review, Texas Monthly, The Guardian, etc. Here is his January 2021 article which speaks to the same topic. Our job is to include such material per DUE using in-text attribution cited to that source. We don't bury it because we don't like what he's saying. We provide ALL significant views, but if we keep downgraded sources just because we don't like what they say and don't align with political perspectives, then we're going to run out of the kinds of sources we need to maintain NPOV, and that would be a travesty. Atsme 💬 📧 00:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that several of the support votes are suggesting that, while the Federalist may have posted deliberately misleading information about COVID-19 and the aftermath of the 2020 US elections, the site shouldn't be deprecated because so many right-wing sites published that type of information that to deprecate all of them would introduce bias. One obvious solution is that we should prefer secondary sources published after-the-fact instead of contemporaneous news which may contain what people hope rather than what is fact. I feel the views of those who insist in April 2021 that Donald Trump is currently serving as President of the United States can be ignored. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Indeed. As everybody knows, the current US president is Teddy Roosevelt.[ Citation Need ed] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Kommersant

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Kommersant's reporting?

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily MailMikehawk10 ( talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Kommersant)

  • Option 1: The New York Times appears to have cited reporting in Kommersant for information on controversies in Russia and the Caucasus ( 1 2 3 4). The The Wall Street Journal writes that "Kommersant, which was at the center of Moscow’s political intrigue in the 1990s and has since been widely viewed as one of Russia’s more independent publications, is owned by Uzbek-born billionaire Alisher Uzmanov, a tycoon with close ties to the Kremlin" and that the paper has come under fire for firing journalists that speculatively reported on the future on a member of the ruling United Russia party. Politico appears to have used reporting from Kommersant uncritically, but did so with attribution. The Washington Post appears to have cited Kommersant's reporting in making its own reports ( 1 2). The BBC has used reporting from Kommersant regarding the identity of an alleged US-Russia double-agent. It appears that the newspaper is generally reliable and independent, though there are some concerns regarding its independence from the Kremlin and reasons to conclude that the source may very well be biased. Kommersant does not appear to have a reputation for fabricating information or for publishing false information, so I think deprecation is out of the question. Its reporting should probably be attributed in-text — though RS seem to indicate that it is more independent from the Kremlin than most Russian media, some RS appear to report that Kommersant may still have some bias in its reporting on political issues of interest to the Russian government. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, see the comment above. Also, Kommersant has been called one of the three most respected newspapers in Russia by the Guardian [32]. Specifically in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh war, the information on the combatants should reflect what the majority of RS say, so if it's only Kommersant who claim that Turkey was a party to the conflict, I wouldn't include it. Alaexis ¿question? 18:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or 2, before May 2019, but option 3 after the story with Ivan Safronov junior when many people left the newspaper [33]. But one should always also check who were authors of specific publications. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per above discussion. Sea Ane ( talk) 22:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, only due to media freedom issues in Russia and possible Kremlin coercion, otherwise this is one of the best Russia has to offer. Nyx86 ( talk) 15:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 due to limited media freedom in Russia. As reliable as they can try to be, with the limited media freedom in Russia, independent media are not allowed to publish things that go against their government and their interests. Therefore, source shouldn't be used for conflicts/international affairs that the Russian government has interests in (e.g. Syria, CAR, Nagorno-Karabakh). — CuriousGolden (T· C) 19:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I don't think there is a good reason to deem Kommersant deprecated. Though, editors should be cautioned about its usage when it comes to Russian government-related topics, like foreign wars that carry Kremlin's interests and domestic issues such as human rights abuses, as the Russian government pressures the free media within the country. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 23:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, from the point of view of a native Russian speaker I can say that Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media [founded back in 1909] and never found unreliable articles till today. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 09:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It depends on the topic. Overall, we have much better Russian sources than Kommersant, so it is very important to know where you want to use it and why.-- Renat 17:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2. Context is important. Whoever cites Kommersant should keep in mind the level of press freedom in Russia and the incident pointed out by My very best wishes. Having said that, I don't see a reason to treat them any differently from a top newspaper in a country with limited press freedom. Judging by this discussion, Kommersant seems to be much closer to Fox News than People's Daily, in that it is merely close to a political party, rather than being directly controlled by one. feminist (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 — As Russian currently living in Russia I would say some context considerations and scrutiny would be necessary/desired to apply when citing. A bunch of editors swaying from pro- and con- Kremlin stance in case of political issues should be taken into account. Serious biases and cover-ups may even happen so great care should be taken. Especially in case of freshly discussed political matters.
    Good starting point is to look at Russian Controversy subsection to learn about controversial cases and practices. Amongst recent ones of which for instance I can name speculations about Navalny's whereabouts which are claimed to be based on sole anonymous reports. Just keep in mind that there is little independent media in Russia.
    As this pointed out by Mikehawk10 already I see there is a bunch of   United States/  United Kingdom media that may refer to Kommersant sometimes. In such cases I would argue to always review underlying sources and checkout others like Moscow Times, Meduza, The Insider or Novaya Gazeta to establish more reliable picture. Cheers.-- AXONOV (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 We can include Institute for the Study of Human Rights [34] ("first academic center in the world to be founded on an interdisciplinary commitment to the study of human rights"), Reuters [35], and U.S. News & World Report [36] to the list of reliable sources that cite Kommersant. Kommersant is still regarded as one of the most independent and reliable newspapers in Russia. -- Steverci ( talk) 23:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 The quality of reporting by this news outlet varies. Older Kommersant (from 1990s) seems to be more reliable than the present one. Grand master 22:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Original opening statement

Below is the portion of the initial opening statement that has been moved from above to shorten the statement per Redrose64's comment: — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I have recently closed a discussion on the talk page for the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. This discussion was relatively close, and there appeared to be no local consensus regarding the reliability of Kommersant, a Russian newspaper that the BBC has described as :one of Russia's leading business broadsheets and the flagship of the Kommersant publishing house." The source is based in Russia, which is a country with relatively low press freedom.
One user in the discussion, Armatura, wrote that this Kommersant source was a reliable source regarding the status of Turkey as a belligerent in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Another user, Grandmaster wrote that the reporting of the paper on this topic "[c]annot be considered anything but gossip" due to its use of an anonymous source. A third, Solavirum curtly told Aruatura to "read WP:RS", but did not elaborate. Գարիկ Ավագյան also seemed to indicate that they believe that Kommersant is a reliable source. None of the editors appeared to appeal to WP:USEBYOTHERS.
The BBC has reported that the newspaper publication has protested against court-ordered censorship, though the BBC report that I found is from 2005. There have been some previous discussions on this noticeboard that have involved the use of Kommersant, though none appear to have a consensus one way or the either. —Initially posted as a portion of the RfC summary by Mikehawk10 ( talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Kommersant)

  • As usual with these kinds of sources, it should not be used as the sole source for political matters the Kremlin is involved in. Turkey stands accused of providing Azerbaijan with better weapons than Russia, but Russia and Israel still remain the largest two suppliers of weapons to the country overall. From Al Jazeera "But analysts agree that the main risk for Turkey is if Azerbaijan crosses one of Russia’s red lines". [37] Spudlace ( talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • NOTE: My comment in this discussion was about the reliability of the source in the context of the original opening statement. That opening statement was later moved to the middle of this discussion section. I moved that opening statement to a separate section to preserve the integrity of the discussion. I didn't realize this was a formal RfC: It's not reliable as the only source for a contentious claim involving Russia's internal politics, but it may be reliable in other contexts. Spudlace ( talk) 21:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • (Outside observation (Editors mentioned)): Just an observation I wanted to state that isn't directly about Kommersant. First, I know almost nothing about Kommersant or the discussions leading up to this RFC. In the initial RFC though, Mikehawk10 mentioned 3 editors, each with different points of view. Armatura is a new editor with less than 2,000 editors, however, they have been an editor for 14 years. Grandmaster is an experienced editor with over 22,000 edits, however, it appear maybe 200-300 of his last contributions have been related with the topic of the war. I don't know his status with it, but there could be a chance for a bias especially with that many edits on a topic. Solavirum appears to be an experienced editor with over 10,000 edits and his last 500 contributions seem to be a decent variety of edits (not just on a topic). Out of the 3 editors mentioned, Solavirum's comments to me would be the most "reliable" in terms of why it should not be used just due to the latest edits they have done. Elijahandskip ( talk) 16:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Elijahandskip, hi. I didn't wanted to opine here. I'm currently topic banned from the issue, and I don't think it is to best to use my comments to see the source reliable. Though, I appreciate your comment. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 17:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Elijahandskip: I agree that the initial dispute isn’t about Kommersant generally, but rather its specific application. It got me curious into whether or not the source was useable more broadly, which is why I created the RfC for the source’s general reliability, though obviously there are additional considerations in making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 17:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
On a separate note — Գարիկ Ավագյան, an editor for 11 years with just under 4600 edits (including deleted edits), was also mentioned in the RfC as being in favor of treating Kommersant as reliable. It seems like there was no local consensus on the source's specific reliability during the dispute that inspired the RfC, though this RfC is (was intended to be) about the newspaper's/website's general reliability.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 18:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

This is heading down an odd path. Please read WP:CON. The consensus of discussions is determined by the quality of the arguments, not by edit count and seniority. Editors do not have a reliability-ranking that grants their opinion more weight than another editor's opinion. Schazjmd  (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 18:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
That is why I said this was an outside observation. I wasn't making any contribution to the discussion other than stating the editors that were mentioned and a brief thing about them. Sorry about missing Գարիկ Ավագյան. The point of my thing was basically what Mikehawk10 said which was no local consensus. Also Schazjmd I know about WP:CON, however, I have discovered that editors with more experience are probably more likely to do their "research" on a topic and are less likely to have a strong bias. I wasn't meaning for my thing to be a long rabbit hole discussion, but it was just to help show a "no local consensus" without stating that. Elijahandskip ( talk) 22:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Kommersant is one of the leading Russian media and is a reliable source. Russia seen as an authoritarian country with no press freedom which gives "not appropriate" impression that all media are state-owned and unreliable. However, if this goes about involvement of Turkey in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not only Kommersant reported this based on its own sources but also Sergey Naryshkin who is quite notable figure Russian Today, RIA Novosti. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 12:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the NK conflict reporting by Kommersant, especially on the issue of Turkey's involvement, Kommersant's reporting was nothing by gossiping, citing anonymous sources with no independent verification. I would not call that high quality journalism. In general, I would say that Kommersant should be used with certain care, because the quality of reporting is uneven. But I would not say that it is totally unreliable as a source, it just depends on a particular article and journalist. Grand master 08:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
What makes you say that it was "nothing by gossiping, citing anonymous sources with no independent verification"? Are there other reliable sources saying this? Can you provide examples when their reporting on this topic has been contradicted by other RS? Alaexis ¿question? 09:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Newspapers use anonymous sources in countries with freedom of press issues and especially in conflict zones, that's not a point for or against the reliability of a source. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The (pro)-Azerbaijani / (pro)-Turkish editors appear to be unhappy with Kommersant because during Nagorno Karabakh war in 2020 it reported (?revealed) things that were supposed to stay secret between Turkey and Azerbaijan (Turkey's direct participation on the war). The (pro)Armenian editors appear to be happy with Kommersant's reporting during the NK war for the same reason. To remove this conflict of interest from RFC,it should discuss the newspaper in general, and not it's reporting of NK war in isolation, and people participating in it should state any conflict of interest they may have. For example, I have conflict of interest due to editing mainly Armenia / NKR related topics. And, yes, the method of scaling the users' opinions by the number of their edits is a biased approach to things. Regards --Armatura ( talk) 21:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Chronicle

Which of the following options should apply to the Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam.

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting on these topics.
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information on these topics, and should never be used in relation to them.

Boynamedsue ( talk) 10:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Jewish Chronicle)

  • Option 4 re the British left, Option 3 re Muslims. The Jewish Chronicle has in recent years been found to have libelled, or contravened IPSO regulations regarding misrepresentation, on at least 7 occasions. It is also being currently investigated by IPSO with regards to allegations against a member of the Left-wing Jewish organisation Jewish Voice for Labour. Its general view of the Labour Left is extremely critical, and its coverage, even when no direct lies, factual inaccuracies or actionable misrepresentations are present, is exceptionally biased.
Links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
7 of the above cases relate to organisations on the British left, primarily the Labour party. Three of the 8 cases mentioned above related to false claims against British Muslims, and it frequently publishes the work of individuals highly critical of Islam such as Melanie Phillips, and claimed islamophobia did not exist. It is my view that it should be treated as being generally unreliable with regards to claims made about living Muslims, Islamophobia and Islam generally. Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The evidence consists mostly of IPSO rulings. I see that they have issued multiple rulings against other newspapers, including The Times and The Telegraph, so what makes these complaints special and would warrant a topic-deprecation? Alaexis ¿question? 10:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Between 2018 and 2020, there were 7 breaches involving left-wing individuals, plus one in which the newspaper was required to add information to its story as a result of IPSO mediation. This constituted all the breaches and mediated settlements imposed by IPSO. JC is a weekly newspaper, so we can compare to other weekly titles. In the same period, the Mail had 4 breaches and 3 mediations, one was related to the British Left. The Sunday Times had 1 breach relating to a member of the British left and 1 mediated correction, out of 9 breaches and six mediated corrections. The fact that the Jewish Chronicle has a problem with its reporting on the left is pretty clear from these numbers. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
As far as I understand the IPSO is voluntary organization and having IPSO overview giving additional layer of reliability if you think that JC is biased we can always attribute. -- Shrike ( talk) 15:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't remember you taking the same position on the two much less serious IPSO rulings against the Canary. I would say that both are biased sources, but Canary is more accurate in its factual reporting. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I was against deprecating/"unreliabling" the Canary as well. If breaches found by IPSO is such a big deal, should we consider The Times unreliable as well who have 3 breaches in 2019?
There are no IPSO rulings against The Canary as it is not regulated by them but by IMPRESS. Being regulated by IPSO is generally seen as a sign of reliability, whereas IMPRESS has yet to establish a reputation. If IMPRESS rulings alone were the problem with The Canary, reliability wouldn't be an issue; there were several other issues raised about The Canary - are there other issues with the JC? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Is there really a problem of multiple editors trying to base information about Islam on it? Alaexis ¿question? 21:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
No. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, somehow I missed BobFromBrockley's comment here. Yes you are correct about the Canary, IMPRESS is viewed as much stricter than IPSO, fully implementing the Leveson Inquiry. My mistake. IPSO on the other hand regulates such paragons of virtue as The Sun, The Star and the Daily Mail, which are deprecated on this website. IPSO membership is not an indicator of reliability. Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 prior to 2010, no opinion afterwards. It seems that the incidents in question have been pretty recent, so I find no reason to doubt that the paper's historical coverage, dating back to 1841, is unreliable. I expect for such a long-running newspaper that it did have a strong reputation for providing accurate news for almost all of its history. For Islam generally, there is a great deal of scholarship on the issue, no reason to use any newspaper for that. ( t · c) buidhe 03:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The incidents of libel against the left actually go back to the late 1960's, but it does seem to be only in the last few years when the exceptional level of IPSO judgments start.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 09:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Could you please provide any source to your accusations? -- Shrike ( talk) 13:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, above there is a post which links to the comparative figures for the Mail on Sunday, which had far fewer decisions against it in the same period, only one of which related to the British left. The Sunday Times had slightly more in total, as it carries much more news, but only 2 were against the British left. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't found anything about 1960 please could point in what link they talking prior 2010? -- Shrike ( talk) 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Sure, no probs. here Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
In this incident, Mayhew's complaint was REJECTED by the press council. Finding ONE incident over the course of 40+ years is hardly evidence of non factual reporting. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
He received a public apology in the High Court. That is a fairly strong indicator of false information being published. However, I agree the problem relates specifically to recent years.-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 06:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Like Alaexis said there are similar ruling against other UK news outlets. Being member of IPSO give them additional credibility. For example The the Guardian its not part of IPSO at all. Does it mean we should depreciate it? -- Shrike ( talk) 13:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Attribute re Labour party, Palestinians and Muslims generally. Recent change in ownership not really had time to bed in. But the sources are clear enough: and "The findings make clear that the reporting of the Jewish Chronicle and journalist Lee Harpin fall far below the professional and ethical standards expected of journalists working today — particularly as pertains to accuracy and fact-checking (the most basic principles of reporting)." Seems there is another trouble brewing:-

  • Option 1 - A paper in publication for nearly 200 years is bound to have some complaints directed against it, and some of them upheld. The fact that it published corrections in response is a point in its favor, not against it. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 16:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It has had 8 false stories in three years, relating to the British left. The preceding 197 years I am less worried about. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It did not publish "8 false stories". It had 8 complaints upheld against it for inaccurate claims (e.g it claimed a left-wing person was expelled for his anti-Semitic views, when the available evidence did not clearly or explicitly show that) or failure to produce evidence for some of its claims, and it addressed them by publishing corrections. These exaggerations seem to indicate that you are on some sort of personal crusade here. I suggest you let editors, whose input you are presumably soliciting here, provide such input, without bludgeoning them with commentary when they fail to toe your line. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I must watch my tone. I was actually agreeing with you in part. I don't see that writing off their entire past content is justified. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 for the Brleft, per Buidhe for the rest; it hasn't always been so reactionary, and for most of its existence has been a paper of record for the community. It's mainly under the current regime that the malleability of facts begins. As Buidhe points out, there's unlikely to be a need to use it as a source ert Islam, except for its own position. —— Serial 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 A newspaper which regularly publishes libels, and which has published articles in defense of Islamophobia. The Daily Mail is sensationalist, but unlike the Chronicle it did not accuse charity organizations of having ties to terrorism. I would not want the Chronicle used as a source in any BLP article. Dimadick ( talk) 18:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The opening statement is incredibly biased for a RfC, making this RfC inherently flawed. It also contains false statements, for instance link 8 is to JVL's website, a highly criticized organization, saying it lodged a complaint with IPSO. However ISPO actually ruled there was no breach - after investigation. The JC has been facing targeted complaints (by groups accused of antisemitism) in recent years. Despite this, the number of complaints upheld is not particularly large. This is a long running news organization that is highly reputable. As for Interpal's terrorist designation, while the UK's Charity Commission on its own investigation did not find Interpal to be supporting terror, it is still designated as terrorist by the US, dating back to 2003 ( Guardian coverage in 2019). Money transfers to Interpal have been blocked in 2020 by HSBC, [38] and their bank accounts were closed by multiple other banks in the past. [39] This is not a black and white situation, and rulings here vary by country.-- Hippeus ( talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 A newspaper as old as the Jewish Chronicle is bound to have some complaints from time to time. The press in Britain doesn't have the same First Amendment protections as in the US, so libel lawsuits are much more common there. And the IPSO has been extensively criticized for being an overly bureaucratic regulator. Nevertheless, JC issued corrections and/or full retractions whenever they did make an error, which is a sign of a good WP:NEWSORG. It would probably be a good idea to use attribution for matters concerning the Labour Party. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
While this doesn't necessarily cancel out your point, I would just state that most criticism of IPSO is based on the point of view that it is insufficiently strict and run by the newspapers rather than being truly independent. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 23:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 this is one of the oldest Jewish newspapers in the world and of course they may get one or two things wrong. Should we now depreciate CNN and the NY Times for the same? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
    The argument is not that they have "got one or two things wrong" over the last two centuries, but that over the last 3 years they have published at least 8 articles regarding a specific subject that are, allegedly, false and inaccurate. I don't currently have an opinion about how reliable it is, but "it's old" is not a useful comment. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If we started sanctioning every news sources that gets something wrong X times in Y years, that is an axe to which the community will flock, keeping score, the forest of sources we rely on will be quickly chopped down. Sanctions need to be treated with care because in fact every news sources in the world gets things wrong, on a regular basis, such is the nature of it -- Green C 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
That's another straw man. The argument here is that there has been a signficant change in the reliability of this specific source, either generally or with regards to a specific subject. That's not unique to this source (see for example the RSP entries for Huffpost (more reliable since 2012), (unreliable since 12 March 2014), Human Events (unreliable since May 2019), etc. The argument from those concerned about the reliability of this source is also not "they got a few things wrong" but that they have published multiple articles with very significant factual errors that allegedly demonstrate, at best, a lack of fact checking - the exact basis on which we evaluate reliability of sources. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 but with the caveat that this is strictly within the context we have been asked to consider and is not my judgement of the source’s body of work. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The paper is reliable, specifics need to be hammered out on talk pages if a particular author or fact is reliable for a given citation. -- Green C 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per GreenC, Sir Joseph, and Hippeus. The opening statement of this RfC has false statements (A post on JVL website that was rejected), the newspaper has a very long positive track record. 11Fox11 ( talk) 06:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for both, but Option 1 for the newspaper historically as per the discussion above. It would worry me greatly to think that some of the multiple unsubstantiated or false statements they've published only in the last few years were used in a BLP. Volteer1 ( talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for both per Horse Eye's Back and Volteer1. Possibly even Option 4 for reporting on the Labour left, specifically since 2018. (IPSO noted "significant concerns" about the handling of certain complaints and referred the JC to the IPSO Standards department as a result.) 7-8 complaints (with more on the way). in a fairly short period of time is significant for a non-national weekly publication.-- DSQ ( talk) 13:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 in the topic-areas mentioned. It is unequivocally a WP:BIASED source in those areas (I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise; they're very, very upfront about their policy goals and outright declared that they were seeking to eliminate Labour's leadership), but that alone wouldn't make them be unreliable; and as others have said, a few unrelated IPSO judgments against them wouldn't be unusual. The problem is that they have a significant number of IPSO judgements that all point to very specific unreliability in the context of their bias, which demonstrates a consistent willingness to skip fact-checking and accuracy when it fits their ideological goals; in other words, they show a systematic problem which makes them a poor source to use in those topic-areas. Its track record on other topics does not change this. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. The fact that it is properly regulated and complies with regulator's decisions is an index of reliability. Some of the breaches are more serious (the first listed) while others less so, so it is not really fair to lump them all together. In the case of the 8th example, IPSO did not uphold the complaint: Two of the examples relate to British Islamist organisations, so it seems a very big leap to "Islam". If people think two corrected articles on Islamist organisations indeed require additional considerations on topic-specific unreliability, I'd phrase it more narrowly. The more serious issue would be in relation to the left. However, considering the huge volume of articles the JC published about Labour antisemitism in this period, five upehld complaints leading to corrections doesn't amount to an awful lot. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, as BobFromBrockley points out it is properly regulated and has a good reputation, the amount of upheld complaints is small in relation to scope of reporting, and the 8th example is actually a rejected complaint. Nyx86 ( talk) 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2. It's usually reliable but has to be treated with caution on certain hot-button issues, where WP:ATT would apply. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1: it's as reliable as any other newspaper on these topics, which is not to say that the origin of information/opinion does not sometimes need to be attributed to the source. It is also not to say that the source does not have a bias (every source does): in this case it has at least an anti-left wing political stance (I don't know enough about its reporting on Islam). Boynamedsue calls it "exceptionally biased"—but I think this whenever I read The Guardian or The Times. What's new? Every source has a strong selective bias (and almost all of those biases clash with my own). The number of complaints seem unsurprising for such a major publication, while the membership of IPSO is a point in its favour. There's a clear fact-checking process with editorial oversight and a corrections process. Bobfrombrockley makes some good points. — Bilorv ( talk) 11:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It has double the number of IPSO rulings against it than the deprecated Mail on Sunday, a paper several times its length. The only weekly title with more IPSO rulings against it is the Sunday Times, which again is much, much longer. The crucial difference with other newspapers is that their errors are randomly scattered by topic, whereas every single one of the JC's errors relate to falsehoods published about the British left, including 6 about the same woman! (dealt with as a single case) This shows a systematic pattern of publishing false news about a particular group, rather than the normal errors one finds in the process of news gathering. As for IPSO, well they regulate seven deprecated publications, so membership is no guarantee of reliability. -- Boynamedsue ( talk) 12:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Further to the questions about IPSO's reliability, I notice that IMPRESS hasn't yet taken forward very many complaints. IPSO has published its external review naming the directors of the funding company and the editors' code commmittee, and IMPRESS will publish its own review in 2022, so at this stage I don't think there are sufficient grounds to make negative comparisons between regulators. At any rate, I'd say membership of either regulator would demonstrate a public commitment to the external regulation of accuracy and ethics. I'm not sure how many IPSO cases we'd expect to see in the seven years since records start in 2014 for a comparable publication from a religious / cultural / ethnic minority in extremely turbulent times, but I counted 17 which struck me as pretty low. As pointed out above, there are rulings in similar vein for other publications which are accepted as credible sources here, so there would need to be more to this proposed deprecation than just rulings. As stated above the opening statement here is out of date - further to the JVL complaint the JC was cleared (see IPSO ruling 28437-20). Moreover, for half the cases against and a third of those against the Jewish Chronicle in the same timeframe, the ruling was that there had been no breach of the Editor's Code. Meanwhile JC has published and continues to publish articles by left politicians, activists and commentators, so I don't find the claim a track record of systematic hostility convincing. I take all this to indicate that standards are generally being met. In summary the JC seems comparable with other credible sources here. TrabiMechanic ( talk) 23:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 As per the responses from Aquillion, Horse Eye's Back and Volteer1 and for all the points Boynamedsue has also made. It has been very faulty concerning its reliability regards many British Left-wing organisations and individuals, Muslims and Islam and Palestinians. Its exalted age and past quality track record on other topics does not give it a free pass. Historically (prior to 2010) and in other areas it might well be Option 1 or 2, but for the specific question of this RfC it is undoubtedly Option 3. ~ BOD ~ TALK 01:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per the analysis by TrabiMechanic and BobFromBrockley. Longstanding organization that has been under an organized attack, and even so the amount of complaints and their contents are not particularly significant.-- Droid I am ( talk) 07:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for recent coverage of the British left and Palestine/Palestinians (do not use material from ~2016 onwards and be extremely careful with stuff from around 2010 to around 2016). Option 1 generally reliable for other matters, but strongly consider attributing for content related to Islam/Muslims. This is based on the totality of evidence and comments presented and linked in this thread. The source is clearly currently problematic regarding a specific subject area, and it's long track record does not excuse that. Outside of that single topic area though there is no evidence that it is any less reliable than before. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or Option 4 for broadly anything coming under the AIPAC topic area. As has been said, other sources which are as or more reliable have been found to be unreliable or deprecated. It's normal for news organisations to have clear biases, but much of its content is so far beyond the bounds of accuracy as to be propaganda. Rather than just carrying out reportage, it has political agendas. It criticises the Board of Deputies of British Jews, no shrinking violets, for not being hardline enough and, indicating its priority isn't impartiality, calls on the Israeli government to produce better hasbara. Its articles are sloppily written, showing little fact-checking rigour. Writers often show a lack of knowledge. Having been heavily criticised for its editorial standards by the press regulators, the claim that the paper is well-regulated is fairly risible. It disregards normal journalistic ethics, altering articles after publishing without noting the changes, sometimes deleting them altogether. On Wikipedia, its content is cited to excessively ram biographical articles of those disliked by supporters of Israel full of uncomplimentary material, editors doing so showing, if anything, the inclination to do the complete opposite in articles on those for whom they have a liking and also not showing any real appreciation for other points of view. Really, I think that the AIPAC area would probably benefit from setting the bar high on sourcing standards as is done in articles related to Eastern Europe. As many of the sources which take a view opposed to that taken by papers such as the Chronicle have been judged to not be reliable, that means that much non-factual material is presented as fact. In the long term, I expect that much current material sourced to papers such as the Chronicle will be pulled as books become available.
Currently I'm involved in a talkpage discussion involving the reliability of articles inluding one from the Chronicle in which a number of untrue or inaccurate factual statements underlie a claim of antisemitism being made against Kerry-Anne Mendoza, editor of The Canary.
    ←   ZScarpia   02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Jewish Chronicle)

  • See The Jewish Chronicle -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Deprecation requires an RfC, which this discussion is not correctly formatted as. If intended to be an RfC, then the opening statement is a clear violation of the requirement to Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia Apologies, and thanks for pointing out the mistake. I was not necessarily wanting to create a formal RfC, but I do support deprecation in that limited area. Reading the guidelines however, I'm not even sure it is possible to deprecate in a topic area. What is your suggestion of the best way to proceed from here? Boynamedsue ( talk) 11:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Reformat this into a general RfC about the reliability of the Jewish Chronicle, move your current opening statement to your vote and provide a new brief, neutral opening statement. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 11:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Reformatting into an RfC is not required. All Boynamedsue has to do is change "Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated" to "Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated (which would require a followup RfC).
If, for example, there is a strong consensus for option 1, an RfC implementing option 4 would be a waste of time. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Guy Macon. Is it possible to deprecate a source on a topic-by-topic basis, or am I misusing the term "deprecate" here? Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It's possible to prescribe usage for specific topic areas. For example, Fox News is listed by consensus somewhere between Options 3 and 4 for "American politics" and "scientific" issues, ostensibly leaning toward three. But by default, Option 4 applies when there are more reliable sources. It's otherwise reliable in other topic areas. Symmachus Auxiliarus ( talk) 15:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Legend. In general, if a source is deprecated you can't use it for anything. For what you appear tpo be looking to do, a consensus of "Publishes false or fabricated information about Left-wing organisations and individuals and about Muslims and Islam" is all you need to stop it from being used as a source for those topics. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I have changed the question to remove any use of the term "deprecate", Option 4 now has wording similar to that suggested by GM. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can use IPSO decisions uncritically. In one of the links provided above it's said that:

Now it's very easy to see that Interpal has been designated as such by the US [40], [41]. Alaexis ¿question? 11:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

”In its apology, The Chronicle said: “We accept that neither Interpal, nor its trustees, have ever been involved with or provided support for terrorist activity of any kind”.
“We apologise unreservedly to the trustees for any distress caused and have agreed to pay them damages for libel.”
“The Chronicle also apologised for wrongly claiming that Interpal chairman of trustees Ibrahim Hewitt (pictured) held “extremist views” in the report”.
Burrobert ( talk) 13:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I read the article, I'm trying to understand what they wrote which turned out to be not true. English defamation law is rather special and the court rulings do not constitute the absolute truth. Alaexis ¿question? 14:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
If you are publishing a story in Britain and state a legal organisation supports terrorism without evidence, you are not a reliable source. All 7 cases reveal an out and out disregard for fact-checking, they simply publish false information with an astounding regularity for such a slim volume. The motivation for this is ideological, the paper has a strong pro-Conservative, pro-Israel line. Boynamedsue ( talk) 15:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
But in this case there IS evidence- Interpal has indeed been designated a terror-supporting organization in the US Kenosha Forever ( talk) 16:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Clear case of not fact checking. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
is it, or is it a case of insufficient checks by the UK Charity commission? Kenosha Forever ( talk) 19:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
No, the US were asked for evidence and produced none. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
that's not supported by the source you provided. And it is irrelevant, in any case. A news organization can rely on official designations by, e.g the US government, to claim that a charity is connected to terror. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 20:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
From the source "In all three investigations, the Commission had asked for a legal or evidential basis for the designation but the U.S. government has declined to do so each time." Guess you missed it. And last time I checked the JC operates in the UK not in the US. Selfstudier ( talk) 20:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
That is a claim , by the Charity Commission, not a fact, that evidence was not provided to it, not that evidence is not available. The US may gov't may feel it is not obligated to reposed to the Charity Commission, or it may have good reason for not divulging its sources. But you completely missed the point: if multiple governments have designated an organization as supporting terror, a news outlet can reasonably claim the same in its reporting, regardless of where it operate (UK vs US - a wholly irrelevant Red Herring) Kenosha Forever ( talk) 20:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll take their claim over your opinion if that's OK with you. The JC has also printed that Interpal has no terror connection, are they lying? Selfstudier ( talk) 21:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You're free to do as you wish, but your personal preferences have absolutely zero bearing on the reliability of a news organization referring to published designations by multiple government agencies. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
They are trying to stay true to British libel law. Yet, it's RS to say there are ties to terrorism, the US includes the charity on its sanctions list. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: if JVL told me it was raining, I'd stick out my hand to double-check. Given their track record of defending open anti-semitism (e.g. Ken Livingstone's holocaust denial, Jackie Walker's Farrakhan-esque conspiracy theories on the slave trade, etc), I'm very loath to take an RfC that relies on them seriously. Sceptre ( talk) 12:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
So the 7 examples where IPSO found the JC to publish false information in 2 years don't count? Boynamedsue ( talk) 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Back to the crusade, I see. Didn't you say you are going to watch this tone, above? I repeat - It did not publish "8 false stories". It had 8 complaints upheld against it for inaccurate claims (e.g it claimed a left-wing person was expelled for his anti-Semitic views, when the available evidence did not clearly or explicitly show that) or failure to produce evidence for some of its claims, and it addressed them by publishing corrections. See the discussion below re: CNN and WaPo, which has very similar characteristics (inaccurate reporting, which some are calling "false"), corrections issued by outlets). Kenosha Forever ( talk) 14:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I would kindly ask you to keep it WP:CIVIL, I find the word "crusade" to be dismissive, inaccurate and offensive in view of its historical connotations. The JC published 7 stories which contained factual inaccuracies about living people, which was proven to the satisfaction of a press regulatory body. That means we should be careful about using it to source claims, especially on the subject about which it is most frequently inaccurate, the British left. The user I was responding to chose to ignore these inaccuracies, I asked them about it. You choose to believe these inaccuracies don't matter, given that this board is all about the accuracy of information provided by a source, I find your view hard to understand but pawb at y peth y bo. Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The press regulatory body is one that the JC, unlike other British papers, voluntarily participates in. It responded to complaints by publishing corrections, which is a point in its favor, no to its detriment. That is one of the criteria for evaluating reliable sources- "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections ". Kenosha Forever ( talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No other paper, not even deprecated papers like the Sun and Daily Mail that also participate in IPSO, has had 7 judgments affecting it relating to the same organisation in 3 years. This is a display of systematic bias which likely reaches into other articles that do not relate to specific individuals who might be defamed and make a complaint. The Daily Mail(!) has less judgments against it covering all topics in the same period than the JC has, despite running twice as many stories every day than the JC does weekly. And those papers that choose not to participate in IPSO do so because they consider it to be biased in favour of the newspapers, not because they want to avoid its scrutiny. Boynamedsue ( talk) 20:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If the JC had decided, like the Financial Times, The Independent and The Guardian, not to participate in IPSO, what would this RfC be based on? Nothing. You are taking the fact that an organization voluntarily agrees to be regulated, and then acts to correct issues identified by the regulatory body as evidence against its reliability. It is absurd. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 20:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian, Financial Times and Independent would argue that they regulate themselves to a higher level than IPSO. However, that is not really relevant to the matter at hand. Being a member of IPSO is not, of itself, enough to state a source is reliable, given some deprecated sources are members. However, a large number of decisions against a newspaper for false information, taken by a body which many believe to be too soft on false information, is strong evidence that false information is regularly published by said paper. This is especially noteworthy when, unlike all the other longer and often more frequently published papers, the JC systematically chooses one exceptionally specific group of people to defame. Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what they would argue, the fact that The Guardian, Financial Times and Independent decided not to submit to IPSO's regulation makes any argument along the lines of "JC is worse than all the other longer and often more frequently published papers" (who are not members) meaningless. Membership in IPSO is not , in itself , evidence of reliability, but "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections " - which is exactly what we have here. Kenosha Forever ( talk) 22:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You shouldn't put things I have not said in inverted commas, it is misrepresentation. If you have genuine doubts about the reliability of the Guardian et al, you should certainly start a section about them detailing your reasons. However, it is not possible to state that membership of IPSO establishes that "a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy". IPSO includes among its members no less than 7 deprecated publications, all of which publish corrections when IPSO mandates them. The JC doesn't reach their nadirs of quality, except in its recent coverage of the British Left and Muslims, which is why I have not asked for full deprecation. Boynamedsue ( talk) 23:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that this RfC is relying on JVL. It's one of several things that participants are considering, and afaict only two people seem to see it is as a significant aspect of the discussion (and one of them is you). Thryduulf ( talk) 16:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Note I have resotored this discussion from the archive as it would benefit from formal closure. I'll list it at WP:ANRFC shortly. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the past discussions, now archived, concerning the reliability of this site for Wikipedia's purposes, but perhaps it might be better to revise its listing at RSP as "Marginally reliable" (yellow shaded), rather than "generally unreliable" (red shaded)? I pose this question for discussion in light of the fact that the Wikipedia Library is now in partnership with for authorized Wikipedians to use it for "Genealogical and historical records". See the announcement here: Books & Bytes newsletter, Issue 40, July–August 2020.  JGHowes  talk 02:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It uses official records. Hardly unreliable.— TrottieTrue ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The issue with places like is not the reliability in the typical sense, but being sure that it is about the exact same person you are looking for. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 14:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, isn't it already established that is usually unreliable, per Wikipedia:ANCESTRY.COM-EL? I thought that was already established... -- Historyday01 ( talk) 15:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I am saying whether it is reliable or not does not mean we should use always use it, as we can't be certain it is about the same person. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree, that is always a continuing genealogy question. Also, Ancestry has that partnership with the National Archives and Records Administration so at least some of the records are cited in their catalog... and every record I've ever looked at on there points back to the original source, so that should be cited instead of the site directly. Historyday01 ( talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
To clarify, I think using Ancestry as a source for official documents should be fine, but user-generated content should obviously be avoided, or used with extreme caution. As for being certain it is the same person, well, it's not as if no one has ever mixed up two notable figures who have the same name. WP content can always be questioned by other editors who wish to have further verification or citations. Bottom line: if WP didn't want us to use Ancestry, they wouldn't provide it in their Library package for editors.-- TrottieTrue ( talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Historyday01, the problem is, we don't know which ones. Guy ( help! - typo?) 12:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think its still unreliable, having a partnership with wikipedia is irrelevant (and any suggestion that we should show favor to parter organizations is inappropriate) and while they may be a good research tool to find WP:RS they are not themselves to be used as one. They simply don’t vet the information they collate in a way which would make it usable. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, if they vetted information they'd destroy their business model. Historyday01 ( talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There are two completely different things the OP is conflating: 1) Whether primary documents hosted by are reliable or 2) Whether original content published by are reliable. Those are unrelated things. does host scans of otherwise reliable primary source documents. Those have always been, still are, and will still continue to be, perfectly fine for citing at Wikipedia (subject to normal restrictions against presenting novel interpretations of primary source documents in Wikipedia's voice, etc.) However, things like user-generated family trees are unreliable as user-generated. Perhaps a clarifying note explaining the difference, but we want to draw a distinction between source documents that Ancestry happens to host (but for which they have no actual role in creating or publishing) vs. their original user-generated content. -- Jayron 32 14:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Those user-generated trees are usually an annoyance for genealogists too. I would say the original content hosted by is not reliable as anyone can say anything and not cite any sources. Historyday01 ( talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I also agree. The original documentation hosted or described by Ancestry is subject to WP:PRIMARY and is certainly usable with caution. User-generated content should be treated as original research. Care must be used because census and birth records can sometimes contain inaccuracies. For instance, Mickey Rooney's birth name is spelled differently in his birth record than in any other source, which I suspect is due to a transcription error so I did not use. But his draft card, showing that he is one inch shorter than is commonly given, is another matter entirely. It is usable but needs to be attributed and cannot be viewed as the final word on a matter. The primary issue with Ancestry is that one has to be sure that one is dealing with the right person, correct birth date etc. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see any issue with the summary as it is currently written: "Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred". There's no reason to cite Ancestry; you would use Ancestry to cite a primary source. And, of course, secondary sources should be used where possible. Heartfox ( talk) 01:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Still unreliable in the case of the user generated content it hosts, and no change to usage of primary documents it hosts per "some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." A partnership with Wikipedia doesn't mean we should alter sourcing guidelines to accommodate usage. Acousmana ( talk) 16:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with ancestry is that using it on Wikipedia inherently calls for WP:NOR, which isn't allowed per policy and it's largely user generated. Ancestry really does not have a place on Wikipedia and if content can only be sourced to "official" records (like birth certificates) it shouldn't be in an article period. VAXIDICAE💉 19:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Is Distractify reliable for celebrity and pop culture news? versacespace talk to me 22:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What specific context are you questioning its use? Can you provide some diffs or article links where it is currently being used? -- Jayron 32 14:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@ VersaceSpace: I've removed the {{ rfc}} tag - not only is there a big red error message, this section fails to abide by the editnotice. You may continue discussion if you like, but please don't jump straight to RfC. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace, I mean, no, but, why? Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG because it's being used in an insane amount of articles. versacespace talk to me 21:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace, good grief. I shake my head in despair at the things some people think are "sources". No wonder half the world is descending towards civil war. What even are facts anyway? Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ JzG: well, honestly I'm not sure how I feel on the matter. They were previously a content farm, similar to 5-minute crafts or something like that, but they've more recently branched out into reporting on the entertainment industry. I've gone through these Distractify articles and the quality of them was...weirdly good. Like bizarrely good considering only a few years back they had a low standard for what they wrote about. Due to the sheer amount of articles using Distractify as a source, this should at least be a perennial entry. versacespace talk to me 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
VersaceSpace, "reporting ont he entertainment industry" is more or less equivalent to a mix of PR and making shit up, regardless of who's doing it. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I understand that but I don't think this is the case here. Most of the people they write about are either too famous or too rich to have wanted an article from them. Seeing some interviews but I don't think there's PR here. versacespace talk to me 12:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Came here through the search function looking for a previous discussion on this site. I have reviewed their terms of service and am a little unclear what the site is about, it appears there remains the option for the site to publish UGC as stories, if this is the case then I believe the answer should be no, generally not reliable. If all the stories are by paid journalists with website editorial oversight (and the UGC is restricted to comment sections) then perhaps it is. Cavalryman ( talk) 02:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC).

@ Cavalryman: it should be easy to differentiate between the articles written by users and the articles written by journalists. versacespace leave a message! 11:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree it should, but having now reviewed several dozen writer profiles I cannot see it. Either the terms of service makes allowances for functionality that does not yet exist (UGC) or it’s completely intermingled as reporting. Cavalryman ( talk) 21:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC).
@ Cavalryman: definitely the former. They perhaps just copied a free terms of service template to their website and used it. But this website can't go any longer without being discussed. I created the article for the publication some time ago, and I brought up this discussion because every day I get a few notifications saying that someone added a link to Distractify in another article. I looked and, it turns out these are all link to reference sections, which means Distractify is being cited in multiple BLPs and being used in deletion discussions to prove notability. And this is only from looking at the "what links here" tool. Who knows the amount of articles who've cited this publication because I made it an article? versacespace leave a message! 21:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I am unconvinced it is definitely the former, I think that needs to be established, that there appears to be the ability for laypersons to have submissions published makes me think twice. I agree with you that the website appears to publish well written stories, but I like to think articles I write here are well written, that doesn’t make them RS.
I am no regular here, I usually visit to see if there is precedence for questionable sources I find, but perhaps ask a question like “Should stories published on be considered generally reliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG?” Then in subsequent paragraphs outline your thoughts on the quality of both the journalism and journalists as well as any editorial oversight, with evidence, and you will need to discuss the terms of service and what appears to be the ability for anyone to contribute stories. Regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 00:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC).
@ Cavalryman: are you suggesting I start up a request for comment? There's been two discussions about the source and its cited in a lot of articles, so I would be in support of starting one. I can draft a statement for it in my sandbox. versacespace leave a message! 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I will defer to others more experienced on this notice board on the requirement for an RfC, but if you show some links to the discussions contesting the site’s reliably as a source it may demonstrate a need for a centralised discussion (I have removed it from the page that brought me here as I am unconvinced that it is reliable [42]). Cavalryman ( talk) 03:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC).

RfC: California Globe


I've been seeing The California Globe, which is owned by Sea of Reeds Media, showing up in some California political articles (currently 27). They generally cover political news with the occasional opinion columns, however the distinction is not apparent within the articles. Therefore, I am asking for community comment on the reliability of the site for future reference. Which of the following describes The California Globe the best?

BriefEdits ( talk) 07:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@ BriefEdits: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{ rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot ( talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Redrose64:. Sorry for the hassle. I've pared down the statement and tried to make it neutral. — BriefEdits ( talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Option 4 No evidence has been presented why it should be classified as option 4. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 22:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry guys. This is my first RfC and I'll remove the fourth option (I just thought it was the default options to list). I'm not too familiar with proper posting procedures and just mimicked the other RfC's I saw on the page. I'll try to adjust it as best I can. — BriefEdits ( talk) 23:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No need to apologize. It is perfectly acceptable to offer deprecation (option 4) as an option in an RfC on this noticeboard. Other editors are able to choose a different option if they prefer. Even if you don't list deprecation as an option, editors can still specify deprecation as their preferred option, and it will still count toward the eventual result. Don't be pressured to amend an RfC, as long as it is compliant with the rules in WP:RFCST. —  Newslinger  talk 18:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh I see. I was just flustered, but I will include it again for posterity so all the comments make sense. Thanks for your insight. — BriefEdits ( talk) 21:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure an RFC should be needed here - it is a "news organization" (in quotation marks sarcastically) but it has only 3 real employees, and appears to crowdsource its news with minimal fact checking (including to a high school student in one instance I found). I furthermore find no evidence they have a robust retraction policy nor any place to submit tips/report factual inaccuracies (beyond emails for the editors... which is very odd to have listed on the main page). At most, I think it can be considered possibly reliable for local news, but it does not meet any of the thing I'd look for for any sort of reliability in general. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 23:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and use attribution. The New Jersey Globe, a sister news site of the California Globe, seems to have done media reporting that has been cited by local and national outlets ( Politico Fox News, NY Daily News, Philly Voice, the Daily Voice, NJ 101.5) and was taken seriously enough for The Asbury Park Press to fire a reporter. I don't think ownership by Sea of Reeds Media is disqualifying, since a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument would lead me to believe that the New Jersey Globe is likely reliable in its media reporting.
The sort of WP:USEBYOTHERS for The California Globe is different, though I think it's still there. I've found quotes sourced from/credit given to the online news organization in its reporting from the NY Daily News, the Lake County Record-Bee, the New University, and Mojave desert news, The San Joaquin Valley Sun. USA Today has used The California Globe in creating some of its pieces, and USA Today is a perennial reliable source. There are definitely sources that indicate that The California Globe is WP:BIASED, such as The Sacramento Bee. Taken together, it looks like while it's a conservative/partisan news and opinion site, it is still a news and opinion site. My best reading on this that it's partisan and generally reliable, though I wouldn't use it to support WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims owing to its partisan nature. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 17:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3, generally unreliable for factual reporting - per the information provided by bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez regarding their methods. They sound flaky AF, to be blunt. That in combination with strong is a disastrous recipe. Especially if they use *crowdsourcing* for information, and their readers are tinfoil hat wearing wingnuts. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 00:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4. It is a fake news site, in the sense of a site that falsely portrays itself as a news source. It doesn't publish fake news as far as I can see, but there's no original reporting and no proper attribution, so this material is of questionable provenance and the main aim seems to be selling clicks. Guy ( help! - typo?) 08:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. The majority of the content on The California Globe is written by either Evan Symon or Katy Grimes, who are also listed as the editors. This is not an adequate editorial process, and makes the site the equivalent of a self-published group blog. The California Globe should not be used for claims about other living persons, per WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." —  Newslinger  talk 18:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Newslinger. There is no evidence at all of editorial fact checking. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Newslinger, no evidence of sound editorial practice.-- Droid I am ( talk) 06:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - As others mentioned, this more seems like an opinion-pushing source than a newspaper with editorial oversight. The first article I check from its first page is dedicated to echoing, in its own voice, a dubious claim, based on some random person's quote that obviously misrepresents an event... Convincing me that 3 is generous. — Paleo Neonate – 07:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 as the comments above, generally unreliable with lack of editorial check. Sea Ane ( talk) 12:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Opinion pushing site with no apparent editorial oversight Jackattack1597 ( talk) 19:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: April 12 closure

Mikehawk10, I see no reason why you would close this RfC this early [43], especially as an involved editor. There is no clear consensus at this stage between Option 3 and Option 4 and it would be better to wait it out a little to have stronger consensus and, as a result, stronger legitimacy down the line. JBchrch ( talk) 09:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reopened the RfC per WP:BRD [44]. JBchrch ( talk) 09:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good; my bad ok the premature close. I had closed it because the RfC had elapsed and the discussion looked as if it overwhelmingly favored Option 3 (which is not my position but it clearly looks like that of the community), so I could list it at WP:RSP quickly in the case that the community doesn’t like it for use in political articles in California. Obviously you are in the right to revert if you believe that there wasn’t a clear consensus; my thinking was WP:IAR so that the community’s decision could be implemented quickly in order that the community might improve Wikipedia. That being said, WP:IAR generally seems to be best suited for areas that don’t cause conflict among editors owing to ignoring rules. I apologize for that and for the inconvenience it has caused you. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 15:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations Needed Podcast

No, this is not a podcast about Wikipedia. This is a podcast that analyses all sorts of corporate media (such as John Stossel's works, "Top 30 under 30" business magazine lists, Mike Rowe's work, local news stations run by big right-wing corporations etc.) from a leftist perspective. It may seem to be just another podcast by some random nobodies that they're self-publishing, but their work has been cited by several notable, reliable sources (so it could be reliable via WP:USEBYOTHERS), it is heavily popular, and the show has interviewed people that have worked for notable credible universities, advocacy groups, and publications such as Vice's Motherboard.

However (and this may just be the bleeding-heart libertarian in me), they're not exactly subtle in how pro-socialist they are. It's to the point where they'll call many countries "socialist," even those that may be capitalist but just have more union involvement or government intervention than, say, the United States; and use terms like "Neoliberal" and "capitalism" even in awkward circumstances where it probably isn't warranted. They probably don't like Ben & Jerry's ice cream for being capitalist. Also add to the fact that they overwhelmingly cite info from advocacy groups and academic literature with a very strong socialist bias (not that that's a bad thing, everything is biased one way or another).

I'll say its use in credible sources is a good indicator of its reliability, but I know this will be used as citations for analysis of subjects and for its interviews of advocates and pro-justice fighters in relation to topics about serious problems. In fact, it is already used for analysis in an article named Vegetarian characters in fiction, so I'd like to have consensus about this source. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Is this source actually being used in any Wikipedia articles? Generally we don't create random RfC's for sources that aren't being used. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is being used. Vegetarian characters in fiction fully represents an analysis from Citations Needed, and it is also cited in Whataboutism. It's fair to assume, due to its gaining popularity (even Anthony Fantano follows them) that it will cited for analysis in other articles. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 00:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I can't disagree with that argumentum ad Fantanum. But seriously it is not necessary to call a RfC if there have been no prior discussions of the source, and I would advise you reformat this to remove the four options as they are not necessary. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Based on how it is being used, we're once again faced with a WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:UNDUE issue, which is not a reliability issue. This is not a source reporting on external facts, it's a source giving its opinion on things, it is self-evidently reliable for its own opinions. The question that needs to be answered is "why does anyone care that this source has an opinion" rather than "do we trust the facts reported by this source". This is not about reliability, this is about relevance; such matters are not universal and need to be hashed out on article talk pages among interested parties. -- Jayron 32 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
        @ Hemiauchenia: Simply posting a thread here for some discussion isn't "calling an RfC". Elli ( talk | contribs) 12:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Jayron. This should be used as an “opinion source” - ie, a primary source cited when and if an article mentions their opinion (A primary source is always reliable for itself). Thus, the issue isn’t reliability... the issue is relevance and DUE/UNDUE WEIGHT. Blueboar ( talk) 12:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought for a moment this meant (which is 100% reliable fo' sho'). Jayron32 sums up my views on this, also noted in many other discussions. Primary (and especially self-published) opinion fails the Wikipedia sourcing trifecta of reliable, independent, secondary. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one and most of them stink. If something on this podcast is genuinely significant then it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources, and if it's not, it's WP:UNDUE. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC) contributors yet again - editors' pick

Sorry to start a 13th discussion on contributors but this doesn't seem to have been directly address in previous discussions. Does it matter if a contributor article is an editors's pick [45]? My view is no. The Outline [46] article mentions how it was claimed you can pay for a Forbes featured article but what this means is uncertain it could be an editors' pick but it could be something else and as the source itself says, we have no idea if they can really achive that, so it's probably best to put that aspect aside. However, while an editors' pick article must be one of those where they "check it more carefully" [47], it's not clear what this checking entails and it seems there's still a fair chance it isn't sufficient to make the content reliable. Note while that particular example some may argue involves a subject matter expect, it's still a problem for BLP if it's an SPS. I see no mention of the article appearing in print. An additional consideration which would IMO apply even to articles appearing in print it that even if it's not an SPS, it probably should still be treated as an opinion column so shouldn't be used for facts in BLP cases, and avoided even in non BLP cases. (Or do print editions of contributor content not say something like opinions are the author's?) Nil Einne ( talk) 06:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Agree, it's of no clear consequence what is designated "editors' pick". Likely it just means it's clickbaity. Alexbrn ( talk) 07:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Editor's pick is irrelevant. Whoever wants to include it would have to thoroughly research the subject and establish that for whatever the source is being used for, "dianahembree" qualifies as a subject matter expert, as established in WP:SPS Graywalls ( talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, the meaning and methodology used to select them is too vague, as with the "check it more carefully" bit. Are they chosen because of their quality? Because someone on the staff liked them? Because some algorithm says it will attract clicks? Because of a paid promotion? It is a mystery! -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The editors of Forbes opinion columns can't magically make the opinions somehow reliable or secondary. It's still basically a blog. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC) (Anti-Defamation League Blog)

Something that popped up during the discussion at COI/N. While on RSN, ADL is listed as "reliable", there is only one entry. Should their blog section be separated out just as sources like Fox New, Huffington Post are depending on the section where the contents are listed? Graywalls ( talk) 11:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What specific information are you trying to source to the blog? -- Jayron 32 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It would probably fall under the "opinion pieces" part of that discussion, as well as the spirit of WP:NEWSBLOG, which would suggest using only with attribution and being cautious when citing it for WP:EXCEPTIONAL or WP:BLP-sensitive statements; additionally, the authorship matters a great deal. That said going by the discussion you linked the issue is more likely to be WP:DUE - the ADL is a very high-profile and influential organization with a strong reputation, meaning its opinions are often due, but it seems like the user there has been inserting it into articles that go beyond the areas where it's considered an authority and into topics where the significance of what the ADL has to say is more tangential. I would generally accord less due weight to its blog, since if something is only covered there, it somewhat implies that the ADL itself isn't giving it as much weight. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    • What I am trying to establish, in generality is whether or not should remain together with ADL, or if the blog section should be treated differently. Graywalls ( talk) 07:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If the blog publishes the official opinions of the ADL, then it's reliable to the same extent as the ADL is. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Newspaper and magazine blogs allows "online columns they call blogs," provided "the writers are professionals." Their latest article is "The Women Facing Charges for January 6, 2021" (April 6, 2021), which provides information about the women facing charges for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. I have no reason to believe that the authors have falsified the information in the article and assume it is just as reliable as an article in legacy media. TFD ( talk) 02:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd apply my default approach to primary sources of opinion publishing: don't use it. If something on is genuinely significant it will be referenced in reliable independent secondary sources, which we should cite. If it's not covered in reliable independent secondary sources then it's WP:UNDUE. We're not supposed to mine the internets for primary-sourced opinions that make the point we want to make. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Vice and Dazed

In the article on astronaut Lisa Nowak there is a single statement:

The 2017 music video for "I Love You More Than You Love Yourself" by Austra references the actions leading up to Nowak's final arrest, with bandleader Katie Stelmanis playing the role of Lisa Nowak.

Three sources are provided to support this stement, all online magazines:

Stereogum was listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive -and- Question were raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa Nowak/archive1 about the reliability of Vice (magazine) and Dazed as high quality sources to support the single statement above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Vice is fine as a source of music criticism. Dazed also seems fine. As far as the "Lisa Nowak" article goes the sentence isn't essential, and if the people at FAC keep pressing on it removing it wouldn't really detract from the article. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Vice has never struck me as particularly problematic. They are edgy, but otherwise reliable as a general source. The question of whether or not the statement even belongs in the article on Nowak per WP:UNDUE is unrelated to the reliability of the sources, and needs to be hashed out as well. Per the above, it is borderline trivial, and if that is the conclusion of others in the discussion at FAC, then this may be worth just letting it go. -- Jayron 32 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
there are potential issues with Vice content, particularly with respect to Music PR and pushing product, note that they state how content is funded/commissioned. This should be taken into consideration when assessing the reliability of their output. And, this not unique to Vice, it's the standard model, Vice just happens to state upfront how they do things. Acous mana 11:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC) (again)

At least 1000 articles now cite The site's FAQ says:

OurCampaigns is an internet community formed in 2002 to discuss politics and elections. It is a collaborative website which allows users to post messages and links, earn points by predicting the outcomes of future elections, and enter historical election information. The website is built by the members as they enter site content.

When you create an account, you are able to post messages. With good solid participation in this area, the website owner (Randy) or others with high enough access may increase your access to more functions of site creation. This will enable you to help make the website more comprehensive and useful for other people who are interested in politics. This is the true power of the website.

OurCampaigns (OC) is also a web community. The users become a small e-family, which means that family dynamics come into play in the discussions. Be quick to forgive, slow to take offense, and quick to admit an error. Most of all, enjoy your time at OC!

Previous discussions:

  • Jan 2009: Post suggesting it be removed from all articles
  • Sep 2010: "looks like an open Wiki"
  • July 2014: points to request for blacklist, declined because "site is dead"
  • Dec 2017: brief discussion
  • May 2020: discussion that leans toward reliable for election results, but some reservations stated
  • Feb 2021: RfC that elapsed; consensus seems to indicate generally unreliable, disagreement over blacklisting; archived without closure

To me, the site is clearly WP:UGC and I was challenging it as a reliable source for date of birth on a BLP, but then I looked and saw how often it's referenced in articles. I'd like to have a community consensus to point to before I keep fighting its use on that one article. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ballotpedia (which is not an open wiki) is generally a better source for political information of this sort. Some of the Ourcampaigns content (specifically their potential candidates) appears to be speculation by unknown persons. Without more investigation, I won't support deprecating it completely (they do have some control over their content), but it should not be relied upon for BLP info such as a birthdate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason why we should ever be citing OC. Perhaps it can be a resource to find primary sources, but there are much better sites to source election results to because it's UGC. Reywas92 Talk 02:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Ourcampaigns shouldn't be cited in articles - and ideally not used at all, but sadly, for sourcing some obscure detailed past election results (for county maps), they're the only realistically available source. At the risk of potentially inaccurate county maps, I feel like it should be allowed for that purpose. Otherwise, no. Elli ( talk | contribs) 10:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Schazjmd, I think this is basically a fansite, no better than a blog, and should be removed wherever it is seen. The long-standing issues suggest a mainspace edit filter, at least. Guy ( help! - typo?) 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Frederick Lewis Weis

I have noticed this book,

  • Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists Who Came to New England between 1623 and 1650

used on numerous articles. Is this or any book(s) by Frederick Lewis Weis considered a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 00:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Frederick Lewis Weis asserts (rather than establishes) that he's the author of "well-known genealogical books." The original publisher of most of his books appears to be Genealogical Publishing Company. The books are rather old (first half of the 20th century); according to Google Scholar most only have single digit citations, though a few of his books and/or articles have as many as a few dozen citations: see here. -- Jayron 32 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
So, not exactly reliable? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 16:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that. Reliability is not a binary condition, it's more of a continuum, and what is acceptable on that continuum depends on the contentiousness of the content being so cited. "Exactly reliable" is not a thing. There is only reliable enough. And context will determine what is "enough". -- Jayron 32 11:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


Which of the following best describes the reliability of

-- TheSandDoctor Talk 06:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (

  • Option 3 A well done fansite with a mix of album reviews and track listings. I don't see a lot of use of it anyways as a source of factual information since it has little else besides reviews and track listings. Reviews are opinion, and not used as reliable information anyways, and track listings are cited to the work itself. I'm not sure what else someone would use this site for; but on the off chance that there's some chance it might be used for factual information, it probably shouldn't be. -- Jayron 32 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • See WP:FANSITE. Not a source. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Jayron32. Chompy Ace 09:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (

  • was first discussed at WikiProject Albums ( since archived), but received insufficient participation to gauge sufficient consensus. As such, I am bringing it up here. Pinging the only participant in the previous discussion (excluding myself), @ Sergecross73:. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 06:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    What kind of information are you trying to source to the site (which cannot be found elsewhere)? -- Jayron 32 13:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Jayron32: I don’t want to source anything to it. It was brought up as a source to demonstrate notability of an album this past fall. At the time, I said it was probably under SPS as it is a self described zine. I figured that wider discussion of its reliability would be beneficial for future reference should it be mentioned at a discussion. I attempted discussing at WikiProject Albums, but it received insufficient participation, aside from Sergecross73 agreeing it does not appear to be a reliable source. — TheSandDoctor Talk 03:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    An RfC is probably not necessary, if it hasn't been discussed here before. Elli ( talk | contribs) 10:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    What specific thing was being referenced from that site? Was it a track listing? A review written by a known journalist? An interview? -- Jayron 32 11:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Jayron32: An album review [48]. Kleim Antyne doesn't exist and there are few results for them in google (not that that is the world though). -- TheSandDoctor Talk 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    A single album review is hard to hang an entire article on. If there's nowhere else to get reliable information about the band from, then there's nothing to write an article about. Even if we take the website as reliable (and a review is not a source of factual information, it's the opinion of the author, so reliability is less of a thing here, we're only concerned with the relevance of the opinion), a review is not factual information to use to write an article around. -- Jayron 32 14:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    @ Jayron32: There were multiple (9) per the previously linked discussion ( link) that were either listed at ALBUMAVOID or otherwise appeared in the same boat as this source. I am not a proponent for sourcing this site or saying that their reviews are noteworthy etc. I am just posing the question about the reliability of the site for future reference as I have seen it used at AfD as an example attempting to demonstrate notability. Asking about so many options at once at an RfC isn't the best way to get any sort of a clear result. As sergecross73 stated in the linked discussion, "While they’ve got an editorial staff, any I spot-checked did not have any professional credentials, just “I really love metal” type stuff. It’s more of an enthusiast/fan site. So it doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s RS requirements." Unfortunately, two editors isn't a sufficient consensus to link to or justification to list it at RSP or WP:ALBUMAVOID. I am trying to get consensus (regardless of what that is) so that this can be referred to in future. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 14:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Gotcha. -- Jayron 32 14:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Biographical information on Rotten Tomatoes website

As per WP:BLPRS, for reliability on English Wikipedia, the biographical section is less commonly used, but perhaps unlike IMDb, it is inaccurate and unreliable information. -- Frontman830 ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#Rotten_Tomatoes_reliable_for_actor_biography_details? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I have the same feelings as before, that Rotten Tomatoes does not appear to be user-edited, so it has editorial control, AND it appears they take feedback and have mechanisms for correcting information when they are made aware of an error. Those are hallmarks of reliability. -- Jayron 32 13:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
What about the celebrity page, it has a bio data (including birth dates). -- Frontman830 ( talk) 07:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
so that is useful as it is a reliable site according to the recent discussion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not that happy about using, say [49] for DOB:s, but if that is the consensus, so be it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we be using a commission report verbatim at Bombay riots

I removed it some time ago but an IP has reverted me. [50]. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a reliability issue, as the report is obviously a reliable source for its own claims (like all primary sources). However using that much of it strikes me as WP:UNDUE weight on any source, especially a primary source, and, potentially, a copyright issue. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Quotes from transcripts

An editor has inserted in the biography of a Chinese diplomat/politician an extended quotation taken from the transcript of a summit. When countered saying that it is a PRIMARY source, he contends that a published transcript amounts to a SECONDARY source. What do you say? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A newsorg, a secondary, quoting a primary, I think that's fine although this does not address the question of whether such a lengthy quotation in the given context is DUE. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps we can cut-down the verbiage for the sake of brevity, without taking-away from the gist of the Chinese minister's advice to the US government. Davidbena ( talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
If the transcript is just being published in full without transformation, that remains a primary source (republishing by a third-party doesn't make it secondary), and thus the inclusion of the quote becomes a question of if it is self-serving, which it appears to be. If instead the newsorg blocked off just that portion of the transcript as part of commentary about Jiechi's views, that's at least some bit of transformation and thus makes it a secondary source to be fair for inclusion, though as noted above, that's probably far too lengthy a quote and should be put into more context. -- Masem ( t) 19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is a full transcript of the entire opening session of the summit. (I am sorry I forgot that the source was behind a pay wall.) And, the quote was cherry picked and branded as "advice" and "rebuke". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
While the excerpt was a "selective quote," its purpose was to show, in no unobtrusive terms, what exactly the Chinese official thought needed to be rectified with the US government, in order to improve overall US-Sino relations. While the source is reliable, perhaps we can ask on RfC whether or not it serves an educational function here, or perhaps, still, find another source that brings an academic analysis of the Chinese minister's comments. Davidbena ( talk) 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Unless a third-party expert/RS comments on why this is an important quote, or relates to other comments that the Chinese official has made related to US relations (as to make it obvious that it is an extension of his prior comments), the pulling of that quote is still a problem of too much use of a primary source without context. A solution would be to try to establish more of this official's stance on US relations as to better support the use of the quote (Separately, the amount of that quote could be trimmed). -- Masem ( t) 19:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of the editor is apparently to help us get "educated" by the Chinese government. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. The purpose of the edit is to make our world a more conducive place to live, and not to see merely the "distorted" view of the "other side." It is precisely because of my love for the United-States that I say this. -- Davidbena ( talk) 19:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Please read about WP:FALSEBALANCE. We summarize was secondary sources say, we don't create a false balance by pulling from primary sources. -- Masem ( t) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyone who has editied for years on Wikipedia knows that editors judge the relative information available to them and select what they deem to be constructive and fitting to the subject at hand. The problem with cross-cultures and different political ideologies is that there is, sometimes, a fine-line drawn between the two opposing ideologies. Davidbena ( talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Masem: I understand you. Let's say we find a third party expert/RS who comments on the Chinese minister's statements, can we also add a supplementary source showing the entire exchange at that Alaska conference, such as this source here? Transcript of Yang Jiechi's remarks on US-styled democracy (The Ensign), Secretary Blinken and Chinese Foreign Minister Clash at Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska on YouTube, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan meet in Alaska with Chinese Foreign Minister and State Councilor Wang Yi and Yang Jiechi / 18 March 2021, minutes 31:11–32:53. This will simply give a more broad picture of all that transpired there (IMHO). Davidbena ( talk) 19:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
If it is just reshowing the event without any type of analysis, summation, or similar transformation of thought, that remains a primary source and we cannot use quotes pulled from it without more context. You need something like this from Sydney Morning Herald that establishes the context of his tirad (though doesn't repeat it all), for example. -- Masem ( t) 19:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I will try and find a better analytical source. Davidbena ( talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

World Health Organization and its investigations into COVID origins

Boldly closing this before we get off-wiki canvassing. Political nonsense. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
To clarify: I closed this because it seems very much like the discussion has already been had at multiple other places (including RfCs, etc), because it has not got a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything but wasting everyone's time ( WP:SNOW) to ultimately no effect, because in light of these two it appears to be WP:POINTY, and finally because avoiding further disruption is a definitive improvement. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:54, 8 April 2021 (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.

1) Link to past discussion. 2) Source: World Health Organization official web page on the origin of Coronavirus. 3) Article: Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

I invite editors to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from World Health Organization regarding the origin of Coronavirus are reliable or unreliable. Many editors have argued that the WHO has supported the Chinese Government's version of events about the pandemic, in general, and about the origin of the virus, in particular. See this current discussion, for example.

The main point of debate is this: editing information regarding the origin of the virus requires MEDRS sources. In general, this resorts to either review articles or WHO official positions. Review articles have proven to be of excellent quality as sources for this matter, however, WHO statements, as put mainly at the World Health Organization official web page on the origin of Coronavirus have been heavily criticized. Examples:

  • Kathy Gilsinan, reporter from The Atlantic, said the portraying of some aspects of the pandemic by the WHO shows a vulnerability in accuracy that stems from the unedited information misinformation it receives from countries with a history of opacity.
  • Editors in the aforementioned discussion point to an alleged conflict of interest (COI) because China finances the WHO
  • Biden Admin. concerns about WHO: We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them
  • A recent open letter from many prestigious scientists, published by the NYT, points to major problems in WHO's report that undermine its scientific credibility.

The objective of this discussion is to answer these questions:

  • Is the WHO's official position about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 reliable at the level of ideal MEDRS?
  • RS, mainly from news agencies and political commentators, heavily criticize the credibility of the WHO Report on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Shall we report this criticism upfront as a disclaimer of WHO's flawed credibility, or should we relegate it to be a minor observation with little weight on the overall credibility of the source? Forich ( talk) 20:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The WHO is a reliable source for the WHO's position, and on Wikipedia nearly always stated as such. As the world's foremost international health organisation the proposal that Wikipedia should provide a disclaimer because of "political commentators" etc. is a preposterous example of the WP:GEVAL fallacy at full throttle. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll add two more subtexts in the above discussion that come from the original talk page: are there any other sources which would fulfill the criteria of WP:MEDRS (most notably the goal to accurately reflect current knowledge), and what are the circumstances where using standard reliable sources in this article instead of the more strict WP:MEDRS would be appropriate? This topic is definitely a stressing case on policy, being an intersection of so many domains with so much uncertainty remaining. Bakkster Man ( talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello my friend. Keeping it simple for a second, and just following Wikipedia guidelines, the WHO is top quality WP:MEDRS, because it falls under medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. And the critics of the WHO that you mentioned (journalists) are not medical reliable sources, as they are WP:MEDPOP.
This "origins of COVID-19" issue is contentious. In my opinion, it's been weaponized by governments to try to cast blame for the pandemic on enemy governments. The Trump administration was screaming lab leak in order to blame China, China is screaming "imported from frozen food" to try to get rid of any blame at all. To complicate matters, the Trump administration cut the WHO's funding, making the issue personal and possibly creating a conflict of interest. Thanks Trump.
The WHO's report states that natural spillover ("possible-to-likely") and/or intermediate host ("likely to very likely") are the most likely origin of the pandemic. This agrees with other MEDRS sources such as review articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals and the CDC. See User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Coronavirus origin best sources
So at the end of the day, all MEDRS sources seem to agree that the most likely origin was natural spillover and/or intermediate host. So if the WHO's statements are agreeing with the rest of MEDRS, do we really have any evidence that the WHO has gone rogue and we should stop considering them a reliable source? Doesn't seem so to me, but I am happy to hear other opinions. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 20:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree completely with Novem Linguae: TLDR is that the WHO is MEDRS reliable for biomedical information, and should not need attribution unless their opinion is grossly out of line with scientific consensus - which it isn't here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 20:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This is pure political nonsense. The WHO is reliable and qualifies as a MEDRS. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:55, 7 April 2021 (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.

Film Music Reporter

Was currently editing an article when I noticed something off. My question is, has there been a discussion on the notability of Film Music Reporter? I've seen articles from the websites being used in major film/television-related pages without any issues, but now the User:Headbomb/unreliable.js script is detecting it as a "generally unreliable source". Just wanted to know if there had been a discussion and/or consensus on the matter. Some Dude From North Carolina Emoji u1f422.svg 17:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

When I edited the page Avengers: Endgame, I replaced this source to Screen Rant but User:Favre1fan93 reverted my edit as the edit summary says, "[...] film music reporter is a reliable source". Meaning the edit summary should indicate that Film Music Reporter is a reliable source. Chompy Ace 21:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I just hope it's tagged as such so it isn't highlighted as a "generally unreliable source". Some Dude From North Carolina Emoji u1f422.svg 00:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


I notice that WION News [51] articles are increasingly used as a source on Wikipedia for Asian (geo)political articles. I am new to this page and procedure, so I would appreciate it if someone can help me understand how to get a general review of WION, so its reliability and limitations become established in WP:RSP. Thanks, Morgengave ( talk) 00:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Morgengave, WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list, it features those which are repeatedly brought to this noticeboard. WP:RSPCRITERIA states that for a source to be included, it must either have an request for comment on the source's reliability or at least two significant discussions, a discussion being considered significant when there are at least three participants. One is usually advised to go through the archives of this noticeboard to see if a source has already been discussed. At present there is one discussion from October 2020. I'm unsure if it would qualify as a significant discussion, seeing as one of the three who had commented on its reliability has been found to be a sock.
I had participated in the previous discussion, and I would just re-iterate what I had said back then. The outlet as it stands acts as an unofficial outlet of the ruling party in India. It was started in 2016 as an international news counterpart of Zee News and now has an unified editorial staff with it. Neither of these would be reliable as they don't refrain from misinformation. I can see that it is being used in 207 articles per  HTTPS links  HTTP links which might need some cleanup. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's much easier to comment if you ask about a specific use of the source. I know that in at least one specific area, the CoVID-19 death toll in China, they have engaged in really crazy speculation, suggesting that there might have been millions of deaths: [52]. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Legal Insurrection

My request for comment is as follows: which of the following best describes the general reliability of Legal Insurrection's reporting? Acous mana 11:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information.
  • Comment I think this pattern of editors throwing RfC after RfC with no discussion and no examples of source use is really a problem. It seems the effort is to blanket cast sources into bucks of "always good", "never good" etc rather than asking if an individual source article is reliable for the specific claims it is being used for. Additionally, I thought in the past we at least required some examples of how the source was being used before starting a RfC. Perhaps a rule should be no RfC unless there are at least 2 examples of discussions/disputes related to the use of a specific source. Springee ( talk) 11:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Its a blog. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
it's a blog, yes, currently cited across 21 articles, one being Shooting of Michael Brown: "Andrew F. Branca, a Massachusetts lawyer focusing on self-defense law, attributed O'Donnell's comments as a straw man because self-defense is a completely independent and sufficient justification for the use of deadly force." Also currently discussed here, about referencing Legal Insurrection in State v. Chauvin. Is bias evident, with respect to a specific narrative that is being constructed around Chauvin's actions in the killing of George Floyd? Acous mana 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
A better way to have started this discussion would be to not do the RfC and instead focus on those particular uses. As a blog it's almost certainly not going to be DUE. I think the only exception might be if we can show that the author of the entries qualifies per RSOPINION. To show that either the specific author of the entry or the blog in general would have to be shown to be notable/cited by others. For example a blog entry by Alan Dershowitz would probably be acceptable per RSOPINION. The same may be true of a source like Volokh Conspiracy blog [ [53]]. It would have to be an attributed opinion but it may be due in such a circumstance. That doesn't mean Legal Insurrection is due in any of these cases. Springee ( talk) 12:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thought preferable to establish Legal Insurrection's general reliability, in terms of the legal opinions offered, instead to dealing with 21 usage instances. Acous mana 12:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't do that with a RfC. Instead search the RSN archives and see if the source has previously been discussed and then ask if it can be used in the article as proposed. As a blog the answer is almost always 3 but if it is also a RSOPPINION then it's interpretation of uncontested facts may be due. Springee ( talk) 12:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)]
checked RSN-A before listing, I feel preferable to get wider community input on source at this juncture; save having to revisit usability as source every time a suggestion arises. Acous mana 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
What did you find? It looks like this discussion might be relevant [ [54]]. It had only limited discussion but Netoholic made a good case for it's use as an expert opinion in that example. Again, this is a case where it would be much better to simply discuss the topic vs start a cold RfC with no upfront discussion. Springee ( talk) 14:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
saw that, a single editor's opinion, from 2 years ago, doesn't really add up to much in terms of establishing general reliability. Acous mana 14:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a blog so it will never have "general reliability" but that doesn't mean it would never be acceptable in some applications. Springee ( talk) 14:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a blog. Period. Not reliable, except for the opinion of the blogger. Period. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think this needs an RfC. There are 30 uses, it's a blog with no obvious evidence of meeting RS, it can just be removed. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Per the evidence presented last time (and I'm taking on faith the evidence checks out), this source may be acceptable as a RSOPINION legal commentary. This is especially true if a local talk page consensus supported inclusion. Springee ( talk) 12:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      Springee, if it's not reported in third party sources then it's WP:UNDUE. Primary sourced opinion pieces are something we do not need. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Use it carefully. InedibleHulk ( talk) 12:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


Is Olympedia ( a reliable for a deceased sportsperson (hence not a BLP)? I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Pomagalski, an article which uses Olympedia as a source. On one hand the website brands itself as a wiki; on the other hand it has a list of editors which asserts that they are all experts in the field. feminist (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like they have editorial control and take feedback, so those are good signs. On the other hand, I do object to the hundreds, maybe even thousands of articles being made solely using this source. versacespace leave a message! 13:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Anyway this is now a moot issue because ActuallyNeverHappened02 has now replaced the Olympedia source. Of course anyone may continue discussion on Olympedia if they want. feminist (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Bunch of new-ish MEDRS-failing predatory publishers added to WP:UPSD/ WP:CITEWATCH, please help clearing them up!

  • Medip Academy: [55]
  • Jaypee Publishers: [56]
  • Intech: [57]
  • IGI Global: [58]
  • Cureus: [59] (not predatory, but these typically not reviewed, basically it's like preprints that could get reviewed)
  • Canadian Center of Science and Education [60]
  • OMICS: [61]

If you see no results, someone cleared them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC Forbes Advisor

A new type of Forbes "Advisor" source that has been proposed to be used and is discussed here Talk:Ethereum#Vis-à-vis_Bitcoin. The source appears to be novel, in that it contains both a contributor and an editor, as well as an advertiser disclaimer (click the "Advertiser Disclosure" link at the top of the page):

The Forbes Advisor editorial team is independent and objective. To help support our reporting work, and to continue our ability to provide this content for free to our readers, we receive compensation from the companies that advertise on the Forbes Advisor site. This compensation comes from two main sources. First, we provide paid placements to advertisers to present their offers. The compensation we receive for those placements affects how and where advertisers’ offers appear on the site. This site does not include all companies or products available within the market. Second, we also include links to advertisers’ offers in some of our articles; these “affiliate links” may generate income for our site when you click on them. The compensation we receive from advertisers does not influence the recommendations or advice our editorial team provides in our articles or otherwise impact any of the editorial content on Forbes Advisor. While we work hard to provide accurate and up to date information that we think you will find relevant, Forbes Advisor does not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. Here is a list of our partners who offer products that we have affiliate links for.

There is RSP on related issues at WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON.

QUESTION: RS on Cryptocurrency articles? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Forbes Advisor)

  • NON-RS Forbes' disclaimer says "we receive compensation from the companies that advertise on the Forbes Advisor site...we provide paid placements to advertisers to present their offers" This clearly says it is a paid contribution, and regardless if it has been edited by an 'unpaid' editor (noting the editors salary was still paid with the paid content). WP:QUACK QUACK QUACK Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Caution due to potential paid writing. Check their list of disclosed advertisers. Not all their writing appears to be paid and I don't see how this particular instance was. Generally unreliable due to paid writing. I missed a few things here initially. -- Chillabit ( talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Chillabit, the list is incomplete (Below is an example of advertisers who offer products that we have affiliate links for on Forbes Advisor). This specific article has a section entitled How to Buy Ethereum, and has direct links to crypto-exchanges. How is that not an ad? As I explained in my response, they just succeeded in fooling you to confuse it with a legitimate Forbes article. JBchrch ( talk) 10:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. Forbes, man, how low will they go? From what I could gather, Forbes Advisor publishes articles that present themselves as legitimate financial advice, but which incorporate some form of paid advertisements. It looks like it was specifically designed to blur the lines between journalistic content and advertising: most article are made up of both informative, factually correct content and ads. The problem is that it's impossible to know if what you are reading factually correct, Forbes-grade content or if you are reading the actual ad. Two examples illustrate this. What Is Ethereum And How Does It Work? was, I think, written to sell ads to crypto-exchanges such as Coinbase or Gemini: as such, it mixes correct and useful information about cryptos, with ads. Here, the ad part is obviously the section entitled How to Buy Ethereum combined with the "Featured Cryptocurrency Products" section. Same concept, more or less, with Who Needs A Business Checking Account?. Now look at Marcus By Goldman Sachs Review or American Express National Bank Review: this is pretty much all ad, masquerading as a "review" and pretty much indistinguishable from the more legit content. In my view, any outlet that fails to distinguish clearly and distinctly journalistic content and ads cannot be considered reliable. JBchrch ( talk) 10:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable I mentioned this on the Talk page but: I think this particular article [1] is a RS because it was written with editorial oversight per WP:FORBES. Specifically, a Forbes Editor is a co-author (Benjamin Curry). [2] After reviewing Forbes' disclosures, they made clear that they still remained editorial independent and objective. I don't even see where the advertisements are on the page, except for links to other articles with information on how to buy cryptocurrencies. Please note that I am the original editor who cited this article on the Ethereum page. Hocus00 ( talk) 11:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It depends, but edge on unreliable If the article is strictly only written by an Advisor (or as they are still being called Contributors), that's the same original problem with Forbes contributors. That said, it is clear there are staff positions within the "Forbes Advisor" section and articles written by them (eg [62]) and those should be taken as not having the Contributors stigma. Same with those with an Advisor Editor. That would apply to the article in question which has an editor as co-author. But all that said: the bulk of headlines that I see out of this-- I wouldn't call clickbaity but they are of the type intended to seed SEO and draw search results, and many have paper thin content. (eg [63]). Ad in JBchrch's comments that the site related to advertising facets, and I would definitely try to go elsewhere first for the same information. -- Masem ( t) 13:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable: When the publisher distances itself from the accuracy of its own articles, there is little room for a publication to develop reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ( WP:REPUTABLE): Forbes Advisor does not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. If I have misunderstood what could be legalspeak instead of an editorial disclaimer, there is still the issue of unclear delineation between paid advertising content among its articles as already noted in this discussion. The end result here should be very similar to WP:FORBESCON, with only slightly more (albeit still inconsistent and nontransparent) editorial oversight and therefore marginally more reliability. — MarkH21 talk 13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Generally unreliable. It's advertorial, with the ads mixed in unmarked with the factual content - even if it's written with a staff member. We can't trust advertorial for Wikipedia. The publication is explicitly distancing itself from these articles; we have no reason to take them seriously as sources. File with the contributor blogs - David Gerard ( talk) 13:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 I agree with Masem. I'd compare "Forbes Advisor" to Dotdash ( RSP entry), as Forbes Advisor seems to primarily consist of SEO-driven reference-type (i.e. tertiary source) articles. feminist (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Forbes Advisor)

  • The disclaimer clearly says "we receive compensation from the companies that advertise on the Forbes Advisor site...we provide paid placements to advertisers to present their offers" This means that someone/something may (probably) have paid for Forbes to write this, and then Forbes will include it. It will lead to the promotion of all kinds of non-notable cryptocurrencies and other investment schemes, regardless if an editor has reviewed the placement's grammar. Specifically, in this case, Hocus00 is using the source to WP:PUFF a comparison of Ethereum to Bitcoin and tomorrow we will have comparisons of Litecoin to Dogecoin, etc. In the past, we have clamped down on these promotion issues with WP:GS/Crypto as well as an informal ban on all crytpocurrency-zine sources, blogs, WP:UGC, etc. This appears a novel attempt to skirt that ban that could also lead to the inclusion of non-notable products and services as notable on WP. It is possible that Forbes recognizes that should this pass it might accomplish an end-run around our currently in place notability filters. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop suggesting that my edit was made to "skirt" the crypto restrictions or puff the Ethereum article. The article appears to comply with WP:FORBES as an Editor was a co-author. If this new type of article is deemed to be unreliable, then so be it. As mentioned on the Ethereum Talk page article, you bullying editors into deleting their edits, posting frivolous Talk page warnings and made-up Wiki policy violations is completely inappropriate. Hocus00 ( talk) 12:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to Forbes deploying a novel tactic to get contributor content included in wikipedia again. Paid placements by new tokens seeking WP notability could generate good 'advertisement' revenue for forbes... Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • They seem to disclose a list of advertisers here. I don't see anything directly cryptocurrency related. That disclaimer link appears to show on all their articles in this section of the site, regardless of topic matter — see here, for example. Have I missed something? -- Chillabit ( talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Advertisers list says "Below is an example of advertisers", it doesnt say it is a complete list of advertisers. However, it seems clear here that the main issue is paid placements, which undermines our attempts at determining WP:DUE. Normally paid placements are advertorials and we dont use them. Right? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I did miss a couple things here actually including the "an example of" on that page, thank you. If they had a full list of advertisers specifically disclosed we could probably parse whether individual articles are usable decently well and I would apply a 'caution' label. Doesn't seem to be the case. -- Chillabit ( talk) 11:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rodeck, David (26 March 2021). "What Is Ethereum And How Does It Work?". Forbes Advisor.
  2. ^ "Benjamin Curry". Forbes Advisor.


OP was in violation of an editing restriction and is now indefinitely blocked. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:31, 11 April 2021 (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.

" Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡt/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. [1] The community is a part of the manosphere, a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists. [2]"

All sources are super pro-feminism. Need neutral sources. Mohammad ( talk) 19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: See the block at the top of the page, which says, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Generally this isn't the place to request new sourcing. You might also be interested in WP:BIASEDSOURCE. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
These sources seem fine to me given that MGTOW is a contemporary movement. The concensus that MGTOW and another other "manosphere" groups are misogynistic seems to be well supported by reliable sources. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The sources in question are these:
List of sources
That's a lot of high-quality sources, covering a wide range of journals, sources, and perspectives - it ranges from journals focused on internet culture, to ones focused on men's studies, to academic writings by feminists, to sources on the Alt-Right, all of which are relevant. So I'm not seeing your argument that they're particularly biased as a group, let alone that they're insufficient for what's cited to them - it looks like a cross-section of high-quality academic sources discussing the topic. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I've contributed some material to the article. The one source I might question is Kill All Normies, which is at least partly a polemic. But it doesn't seem to be used as the sole source for any important claims, so I'm not too worried about it. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Being "pro-feminism" is the default stance of all functional, progressive societies. If we were to give weight to regressive anti-feminist sources, we would be giving undue weight to fringe points-of-view. Zaathras ( talk) 02:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • RSN deals with reliability of particular sources. It's not the place for editors to ask for sources presenting another point of view. Any discussion of a specific article's neutrality should first take place on its talk page, and if that fails, on WP:NPOVN. feminist (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2021 (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. A great source dressed up like a bad one?

On List of power stations in Scotland I noticed a bunch of links to and the website name got my attention. It goes to the Gazetteer for Scotland's website which is rather old-school and very yellow, and contains some entries that appear almost user-generated in feel.

However, closer examination reveals it to be an academic work by what seem like appropriate leading experts. An FAQ page reveals "specialist authors" are employed (presumably on a voluntary/unpaid basis) to write the articles, that they "try to use multiple sources to substantiate facts", and use impressive primary sources combined with professional experience. It also reveals the two lead academics hold joint editorial control. The editorial team are also all identified.

So on the whole it seems like it may in fact be an excellent source. I can think of many uses for citing pesky details on all sorts of things. But it all hinges on if I'm right that the authors and their results are actually reliable, and if I'm right to conclude it's not self-published. Am I? ( talk) 23:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Alleged circular sourcing

I have a question about "On this day in history" columns. I understand that there has been some drama around this, none of which I followed, so I'd like to start by saying that I just want to get a quick answer, minus any explanations about the drama.

One editor recently decided that UPI's version of this was WP:CIRCULAR, i.e., the contents were just copied from the Wikipedia article. The editor believes this because, even though UPI has been producing this column for longer than Wikipedia has existed, the editor believes they wouldn't want to pay someone to make their own list when they could just copy Wikipedia's list for free. As a result, the editor removed some citations from BLP articles.

I only want to get your opinion about one particular edit. You can see the removal of the citation (but not the fact) from Emma Greenwell here. The Wikipedia article that the news service allegedly copied her birthdate from is January 14. Problem: Emma Greenwell's birthday isn't listed in the Wikipedia article that the source allegedly copied her birthdate from.

I don't believe this is circular sourcing (how could it be?), and I don't believe this is an unreliable source for this claim. Am I wrong? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally reliable: United Press International is a news agency, like Reuters ( RSP entry). UPI did not use circular sourcing, which can be used for living persons to source birth dates via "On this day in history" columns (e.g. Chadwick Boseman, Josh McDermitt). I reverted this edit which is considered useful. Chompy Ace 10:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@ WhatamIdoing: I think in this particular situation, the citation was added by a user who was recently banned, part of the reason being that to add "references" to Wikipedia articles, they, in their role as a journalist at a relatively-respectable publication, would publish the information they intended to reference. This indeed was an insidious form of circular citation, so many of their additions have been reverted as a "better safe than sorry". Not commenting on this particular one (as the authorship of what they cited looks unclear, and if I had to hazard a guess, wasn't them). Elli ( talk | contribs) 16:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Elli, we know how the birthdate got into the article: The birth year was added when the article was created in 2014 and the date was added in 2015, with the edit summary claiming that it came from the subject's Instagram account. Or did you mean that the authorship of the source is unclear? In that case, I can see why an excessive tendency towards WP:SELFCITEing might tempt one over-react with a "better safe than sorry" approach, even though, for the general rule according to the FAQ at WT:V is:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?
No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
But if this was removed because the editor was banned, the edit summary should have said something like "Reverting edit by community-banned editor", which we can all understand, rather than something that translates to "I claim that this source copied this information from a Wikipedia article, even though the Wikipedia article doesn't contain this information". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@ WhatamIdoing: I'm not defending the removal here, I was just trying to provide some context. Elli ( talk | contribs) 20:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Trial of Chauvin

Over at State v. Chauvin‎ An argument is being made that RS saying "Jody Stiger, of the Los Angeles Police Department, also said Derek Chauvin had his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck from the moment Chauvin and officers put Mr Floyd on the ground to the time paramedics arrived." [ [64]] is not good enough, and the actual quote has to be provided. As far as I know this is not the case, as RS saying it is enough, correct? Slatersteven ( talk) 12:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I posted on this board a literal minute before you, weird. Anyway, that source says "neck or neck area". Emphasis mine. A knee can't stay in both places for however many minutes, can it? InedibleHulk ( talk) 12:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
And? Are you disputing the source says he said " Derek Chauvin had his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck"? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm only wondering why you're ignoring the contradictory claim of it sometimes appearing in another area, from the exact same "reliable" source. InedibleHulk ( talk) 13:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"Neck area" does not contradict neck, as the in the neck area. The source says he said X, do you dispute the source says he said X? I will not respond again to you, as I came here to get a third opinion, I know you dispute this. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, which parts of the neck area are not generally considered to be the neck? Inquiring minds need to know. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Pertinently here, the trapezius muscles, (thoracic) backbone and shoulder blades. The jaw is in the neighbourhood. Gorilla Monsoon might point out the external occipital protuberance, if he wasn't dead, or the collarbone (collar-and-elbow, technically). InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven, setting aside my personal thoughts on how discussion at that page should go, I have a question for you about posting this here. Did you actually propose using that source,, at either State v. Chauvin or its talk page? I don't see it linked on either. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Not exactly, it was just an example, this is a more general question about the sourcing for the claim in general. It is not the only source we could use (and we do use other sources) but this is more about the idea we cannot use an RS's analysis of what was said, but rather we need a direct quote of him actually saying it. I think I know the answer but wanted third party input (maybe an RFC at the talk page might have been better), as this is a challenge to the use of RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel like I need an anatomy article that explains what non-neck body parts are in the "neck area". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Head and neck anatomy has a pretty big one (and otorhinolaryngology is a big one). InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • LBC is a respectable mainstream news broadcaster and talk radio station but much of its content is opinion (though it makes a habit of featuring hosts with widely varying political views). The RS question is thus reasonable in context. This story is straight news reporting, and seems reliable. Whether it's WP:UNDUE is a different question. I'd say that anything directly relating to cause of death should have at least two RS, because that article can at times become a proxy war between entrenched parties. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

So im editing the Incredibox page and i seee that there arent many sources. Which is weird because it is a very popular game. So what im concerned with is when the different versions were releaased. Now, i know that these days are correct, because i own the game and many youtubers that play incredibox proclaimed that version 8 was released on december 1 2020. Now, can i use the app store updates as evidence of this? Also, are youtube videos reliable evidence.  Lionsleeps26 ( talk) 17:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lionsleeps26. To answer your questions: the App Store would be a primary source, though it would be a reliable one in this instance. However, I would recommend reading WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as if this update isn't covered in reliable, independent sources (such as news articles, magazines, etc.), then a mention of version 8 is likely unwarranted. As far as YouTube videos go, please see WP:YOUTUBE. While there's no blanket ban, the fact remains that it has to be a reliable source. As an example, a video posted to YouTube from a reliable outlet would be acceptable; a video from e.g. MateoForFun would not. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
So do i use it or not? user:TheTechnician27

Lionsleeps26 ( talk) 20:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Lionsleeps26: Hi, and sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. Regarding the YouTube source, treat it as a WP:SELFPUB unless it's from a known reliable source (e.g. Eurogamer, Kotaku, etc.); I suggest reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources and exercising your best judgement from there, though the specific YouTube user I noted above expressly does not count as a reliable source. Regarding the App Store? Well, "no" for two reasons: firstly, I checked, and there doesn't appear to be reliable, independent coverage specifically of Dystopia at all (I would imagine this is the case for most if not all of the other versions as well). Furthermore, the App Store is a storefront, which is often strongly frowned upon. If there were reliable, independent coverage specifically of V8 but none of them had a release date, something like their press kit, while not ideal, could be used as a second citation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source

Brian Dunning, “science writer and author, and also the Executive Director of Skeptoid Media” [1] has been used as an ostensibly reliable source [2] to support a claim made in the WP Grey alien article. [3] I submit however that Brian Dunning should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

Brian Dunning plead guilty to and was convicted of felony wire fraud (2014), scamming eBay out of an estimated $5 million dollars. [4] [5] With his Skeptoid podcast, Dunning purported to defend the wider public from fraud even while committing fraud himself [6] – indeed, according to many commentators, including blackmailing a co-conspirator [7] and defrauding his own Skeptoid supporters in the same scam. [8] A further indication of Dunning’s character and reliability has been highlighted, also from within his own constituency: “I did not think it was right to gloat when the cultural opposition falters or ceases to be an issue as when Sylvia Browne died. I do not think it proper, or rational to gloat when a skeptic has faltered either.” [9]

I would like thank the community and ask for a consideration of this matter. Tesldact Smih ( talk) 05:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Dunning, B. (2021) Author Bio: Brian Dunning. Retrieved from, 11 April 2021.
  2. ^ “Dunning, Brian. "Betty and Barney Hill: The Original UFO Abduction A critical look at the original UFO abduction story, that so many people take for granted". Skeptoid Media, Inc. Retrieved 5 March 2021.”
  3. ^, In popular culture, History, paragraph 3, Reference #4
  4. ^ Edwards, J. (2013) How eBay Worked With The FBI To Put Its Top Affiliate Marketers In Prison. Business Insider Australia. Retrieved from, 11 April 2021.
  5. ^ Mehta, H. (2014) Brian Dunning, Host of Skeptoid Podcast, Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison for Scamming eBay. Friendly Atheist. Retrieved from, 08 April 2021.
  6. ^ Watson, R. (2014) The Worst Thing Brian Dunning Has Done for Skepticism. Skepchick. Retrieved from, 08 April 2021.
  7. ^ Thibeault, J. (2014) The sophistry and revisionist history in Skeptoid Brian Dunning's statement. The Orbit. Retrieved from, 11 April 2021.
  8. ^ Thompson, G. D. (2017) Skepticism About Skeptics. Retrieved from, 08 April 2021.
  9. ^ "Nigel St. Whitehall", H. (2014) Recent thoughts on Mr. Brian Dunning. The Skeptical Review. Retrieved from, 11 April 2021.
Tesldact Smih, Dunning is a respected expert on this topic. His issues with eBay are not as simple as appears on the surface: he was basically stitched up, but acknowledged that he should have realised that what he was doing was impermissible. That's not relevant to his expertise on the subject of ufology folklore. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@ JzG: what are your sources for these claims? - Scarpy ( talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Scarpy, I think it's all; covered at Brian Dunning (author). I should note that I first knew him as a FileMaker Pro guru, I listened to Skeptoid for about a year but stopped after his conviction because I was uncomfortable with the lack of judgment it implied. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Guy, I have to agree with Scarpy. What are the sources you rely upon for that assessment? If it is Dunning’s explanation (then talk to the guilty and and they will always plead their innocence to you), please see A Critical Analysis of Brian Dunning’s Explanation [1]
And Dunning is certainly not a reliable source, his DDT fail is a perfect example. [2] [3] [4]
Nor is he particularly respected by his own supporters, who tend toward outrage. “The outrage, however, comes from knowing that I enjoyed Skeptoid enough to do the $4/month donation for several months, finally caving to Dunning’s frequent postscript pleas for money. The donation requests were interesting, since Skeptoid once billed itself as “the only podcast that does not accept donations or sponsors,” [5]
And a duplicitous hypocrite… In an interview with Alex Tsarkis, after Tsarkis has questioned Dunning about why he will not debate his opponents, Dunning argues the principle that it is easy to throw out false or misleading “one-liners”, but to prove them false often takes a great deal of time and effort.
“They’re [whoever Dunning’s opponent of the moment is] not limited to anything. They can say whatever the heck they want. They can throw that stuff out way faster and make it up way quicker than I could ever keep up with or respond to. I’ve found that many debates go that way. I attend a debate sometimes. I watch them.”
However, a few minutes later, after Dunning has engaged in the precise practice that he has just berated his opponents for, Alex Tsakiris politely notes Dunning’s hypocrisy: “You are fulfilling [laughs], you are fulfilling your prophesy about debate. You just laid out about ten points there that would have to be deconstructed and handled one at a time.
A few minutes later, Alex Tsakiris notes Dunning’s habit of lying by omission: “So you just mentioned Scargle’s commentary. Why don’t you mention Nelson’s response to it, published in the Journal for Scientific Exploration, a peer-review journal that he wrote a response to that? Or, the additional papers that have been published since then as a response to it? We have two folks debating here. Don’t we want to hear both sides of the debate?
Brian Dunning: Certainly. I don’t have that in front of me. I can’t read that for you right now.
Alex Tsakiris: I think it’s also an interesting context that do you remember where Scargle’s criticism, where that’s published? It’s published in the same Journal for Scientific Exploration that Nelson and Raden published their articles…” [6]
Dunning is implacably biased…and the problem with Dunnings wilful ignorance of (potentially) falsifying evidence is that one must forever after be fact-checking whatever the man says. Demonstrably the man cannot be relied upon to provide an honest appraisal of whatever he is talking about.
Oh, and Guy, just because you know someone as a "guru" in one field (Filemaker), does not make them an expert in ufology, nor in FileMaker apparently... Dunnings self-proclaimed qualifications as revealed in his FBI interview prior to his charging and conviction (Dunning plead Guilty btw ETA: ...and he went to prison):
”Summary from FBI record of interview 19 June 2007 which records Dunning's statements: / 1. He has had very little formal education. / 2. He does not have a college degree. (He quit college.) / 3. He attended classes at BYU, UCLA, and UC Irvine. / 4. He is not an experienced administrator. 5. He depended on employees at Rackspace to do most of his technical server work. / 6. He does not have any formal training in computer science or any related technical field. 7. His [claimed] expertise in Filemaker Pro is self-learned.” [7] Tesldact Smih ( talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Watson, R. (2014) A Critical Analysis of Brian Dunning’s Explanation. skepchik. Retrieved from, 12 April 2012.
  2. ^ tlambert (2010) Skeptoid fact check part 1. ScienceBlog. Retrieved from, 12 April 2021.
  3. ^ Pearson, G. (2010) Brian Dunning’s DDT Fail. Bug Gwen. Retrieved from, 12 April 2012.
  4. ^ Watson, R. (2010). Brian Dunning’s DDT Fail. Skepchick. Retrieved from, 12 April, 2021.
  5. ^ Dubito Ergo Sum (2011) The Indictment of Brian Dunning. Retrieved from, 11 April 2021.
  6. ^ Tsakiris, A. (2017) 73. Skeptoid’s Brian Dunning Finds Global Consciousness Project Lacking. Skeptiko. Retrieved from, 11 April 2012.
  7. ^ Thompson, G. D. (2017) Skepticism About Skeptics. Retrieved from, 08 April 2021.

The Daily Poster

Is ‘’The Daily Poster’’ RS? Thinking specifically in the case of this article. - Scarpy ( talk) 06:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a substack publication founded by David Sirota. It has one more editor and several contributors. I think we should be guided by WP:USEBYOTHERS and I managed to find at least one such usage [65]. I'm not a big fan of fact checkers but MediaBiasFactCheck rate The Daily Poster High on factual reporting [66]. On the other hand, it should probably be possible to find a better source for factual claims. Alaexis ¿question? 06:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a personal site/blog/essay archive/promo for a novel... looking at the author and his linkedin profile, it does not seem this site should be cited in WP except itself/author/book/etc... where self-published information would be acceptable. An editor recently scrubbed the links to this personal website, but many of the removals were reversed. I cannot see any reason this site should be used as a RS for the various science articles where it appears.

Examples: It is used as a source for "In 1887, German physicist Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory" at Radio wave, and for which tower in Italy where the different-masses-falling experiment was performed Galileo Galilei.15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just revert the additions and report the user for COI spamming. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Headbomb - I agree, and I did exactly that, but 18 of my excisions were reverted in cases where the link formed part of an in-line ref. One deletion was subsequently restored by another editor. I am slowly working through the remaining 17 finding much better and more reliable sources. In the meantime I believe that all the remaining links should be removed as they are undoubtedly spammy with no hint of reliability. In most cases much better sources are available - it just takes time to find them and insert them in appropriate formatting.   Velella   Velella Talk   18:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit WP enough any more to be "up" on current community thinking. Since a pair of reasonable editors had disagreed about using the source, I brought it here for wider visibility. Also, if it comes up again (spammers tend to persist), a quick check will yield the consensus from here. Shajure ( talk) 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Headbomb: This is not the typical case where we caught an editor mass-inserting these links. Many of the references have been in place for more than ten years. The editor that triggered Velalla's excisions was not adding new links but rather was replacing dead links to an older site with working links to the same material. I reverted the removal of references because searching and blanket removal of citations should be done based on an assessment of the quality of the reference, not just the number of times the site is cited. Velalla has argued since that these are not good references, which is the right reason so I am now in support.-- Srleffler ( talk) 22:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Are Astrodatabank, TV Guide,, Google Arts & Culture reliable?

FYI – I've changed the title Kleinpecan ( talk) 10:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have some questions about sources: Are biographies of living people on Astrodatabank and Tvguide(Fast facts) considered reliable ? Also are Celebrity lists on a good source to verify notability that could be added as a reference ? What about Google Arts&Culture? Are online exhibitions created by partner cultural organizations,that have been reviewed and published by Google team, considered secondary sources even if the museum is associated with the subject? Many Thanks-- Montavanelli ( talk) 07:43, 12 April 2021

Hello Montavanelli and welcome to the Teahouse (this was at the Teahouse when I started writing)! General tip: Check WP:RSP or search the archives at WP:RSN for questions like this, that can help. WP:RSN is also dedicated to these particular questions. On to specifics.

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång , Thanks for your reply. How about sources like bios from the directory of Experimental Cinema, or in depth articles from Newspapers such as Il Piccolo or broadcast interviews from here ? Articles coming from specialized Journalism on blogs like this , this , this or this would be considered a reliable source? How about Thrive Global?.Thanks a lot if you can clarify.-- Montavanelli ( talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

University Hospital Mannheim

This article has been edited primarily by a SPA with possible COI. Before I take a scalpel to the article given their unresponsiveness to talk page message, I'd like to know whether the community considers any of primary sourcing for this article is acceptable.

Appreciate any input

Slywriter ( talk) 13:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)