This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, I am pondering doing some work on these pages.

/info/en/?search=Mehmet_Nazif_G%C3%BCnal

/info/en/?search=MNG_Group_of_Companies

I have found the following sources.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/douggollan/2020/01/03/carlos-ghosns-private-jet-escape-could-impact-the-airplanes-owners/

https://observers.france24.com/en/20190815-killing-turkish-run-gold-mine-burkina-faso-tensions

https://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/burkina-fasoda-turk-maden-sirketine-karsi-isyan-245545h.htm

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/nissan-ex-chairman-carlos-ghosns-350000-getaway-flight.html

https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-turkiye-50983113

https://www.duvarenglish.com/environment/2020/05/26/company-building-hydroelectric-plant-in-artvin-breaching-environmental-rules-say-activists/

Are these sources permissible within this project, and what steps should I take to keep the POV neutral?

Thanks GDX420 ( talk) 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Gollan is a forbes contributor, which are considered unreliable. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, so if I understand this correctly, we think the Forbes piece is an unreliable source but the rest are OK to use? Is that the Gyst of it? Just want to check, I haven't actually done much editing in mainspace yet. Are there cases where sources are reliable for some things but not reliable for other things? GDX420 ( talk) 16:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

France24, BBC, and CNBC are solidly reliable sources for business info, not sure about the others. ( t · c) buidhe 16:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the BBC, CNBC and France24 are definitely reliable, I have no opinion on Yeniçağ or Gazete Duvar Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In terms of the live edits, I understand this is a touchy subject involving a living person and recent events. Given the public interest in the great Carlos Ghosn escape and the outrage over the recent spate of extrajudicial killings, do you think these edits might be better suited to a more senior Wikipedian? GDX420 ( talk) 16:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I would make the edits, but if editors push back against you discuss on the talk pages. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. GDX420 ( talk) 17:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeniçağ is described on Wikipedia as a Turkish nationalist newspaper. I wouldn't include that without attribution, but I don't speak Turkish so I can't say for certain. Anaglyphic ( talk) 00:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hurriyet describes it as Kemalist, and it appears to have had issues with the Erdogan government in recent years [1], so it's not some government mouthpiece. However as someone with a familiarity of the british press I have an instinctive aversion to red tops, and conforming to that expectation much of their coverage (at least according to the auto-translated contents) seems pretty tabloidy. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The party in question is the minor Workers' Front (Croatia) party. There aren't many sources about their position, here are some of them that were brought up:

• Routledge book from 2016 (Euroscepticism as a Transnational and Pan-European Phenomenon: The Emergence of a New Sphere of Oppositio), they included the party under "Radical left parties"
• Balkan Insight, 2018, a regional news website. Quote: "Workers’ Front, a radical left political party"
• Balkan Insight, 2020. Quote: "radical left-wing Radnicka Fronta (Workers’ Front) party"
• index.hr, 2020, a Croatian news website. Quote (in Croatian): "before the election she seeks support for the extreme left" (original:"pred izbore traži podršku za ekstremnu ljevicu") - the person that the article is talking about is a member of the party
• Jutarnji.hr, 2020, a Croatian news website. Quote (in Croatian): ("the extreme left like the Workers' Front" (original: "ekstremnu ljevicu poput Radničke fronte")
• Counterfire.org, 2020, an analysis. Quote: "openly anti-capitalist MP, Katarina Peović of the Workers’ Front, offers the far left a bridgehead in Croatia and the region"
• International Socialist, 2020 - an interview with "young socialists from Zagreb". One of the persons being interviewed says for the party: "Following its experience of its participation in the recent presidential elections, it has begun to move away from its more radical policies and street action in public towards a more reformist and populist presentation, which they believe will help it gain voter support from those looking for a new social-democratic position."
• Libertarijanska ljevica, a Wordpress blog (in Croatian), that says that the party "gave up socialism" ("odustala od socijalizma"): ("it is evident that these are not some radical leftists in the struggle for socialism" (original:"vidljivo je da nije riječ o nekim radikalnim ljevičarima u borbi za socijalizam")
• Glas Istre, an interview in a Croatian news website with a member of the party. I do not see what can be drawn from this, but it is listed as a source.

What is reliable of these for the party's position? Tezwoo ( talk) 22:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ignore the wordpress blog and the interviews. (It may be that the party is trying to rebrand, but it's up to third party sources to say whether that is effective or not). I would cite Balkan Insight and Routledge as the best of the sources offered here. I don't think counterfire is reliable for third party claims, it's clearly a far left activist website. ( t · c) buidhe 23:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What is it, and is it RS? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you getting

<Error>

AccessDenied

<Message>Access Denied</Message>

<RequestId>53B33BF47393755A</RequestId>

<HostId>

jxoR1Byt+ik8RJuhx+wkwfeMobIMKZFqCGRzGDIRkJqM3/D1ck0z6fgvr5fH0subPaNSVT4iNyY=

</HostId>

</Error>

? —— Serial ^# 11:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Something like that, I should have linked to what is being used https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7070-exhibit-final07072020/4b81216735f2203a08cb/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 my problem is I have no idea who is hosting this, as I just get that error message. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

H'mm, I don't know what the NYT has got to do with it (perhaps they combined them all?) but this appears to be a combination of the documents curremtly held on the Minnesota Judiciary site. (See at the top of the pdf, "27-CR-20-12951" = "State vs. Thomas Kiernan Lane") —— Serial ^# 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That is what I am concerned about, this looks like it may be trying to claim it is the NYT when it is not. It just all seems to be a collection of random tat. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[11] and [12] are used at Ki Chung Kim, and they definitely appear to be self-published by a business promoting itself as the Taekwondo Hall of Fame. Jerod Lycett ( talk) 17:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This song was performed by Jon Bon Jovi in the movie "New Year's Eve", 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.150.16 ( talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is about sources, what source are you trying to use? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This has recently come up in this discussion. The gist of the question: is video game website Polygon.com a WP:RS to report on sex crimes allegations against BLPs? Chetsford ( talk) 03:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not RS for Sex Crimes Reporting: Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the reliability of a source for one subject is not proof of its reliability for all subjects throughout space and time. We would not source coverage of elections in Mexico or the Syrian Civil War to video game website polygon.com, nor would we source a sensitive matter like sex crimes reporting to it. It does not have the capability or capacity to originate sex crimes reporting. Unambiguous RS like daily newspapers usually restrict which of their staff are assigned to enterprise stories on sexual violence to those with specialized training and experience; entire workshops are held to educate journalists on these highly complex beats. [13] It is unbelievable to presume an outlet whose articles are things like "Horizon Zero Dawn comes to PC on August 7" and "2020’s best tabletop RPGs" can seamlessly pivot to complex reporting on sexual violence as a one-off article before returning to such Pulitzer fare as "Ten Bustiest Booth Babes at E3". Chetsford ( talk) 03:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Since the context was omitted by OP, note that the context here is about Zak Smith, a well-known public figure in the games industry, getting blacklisted by WotC and having his previous credits removed over sexual misconduct allegations. Given how this context is plainly relevant to whether Polygon is a good source for it, I'm baffled you would omit it while simultaneously trying to invoke WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Beyond that, Polygon is one of the most well-known publications in the industry. They're owned by Vox and, as far as I know, have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:RS requires; accusations against people within the industry are inside the scope of what they cover. Furthermore, if we accepted your logic and refused to accusations that have attracted significant attention in high-profile, high-quality industry publications, it would be almost impossible to ever cover them at all, even when they rise to the point of eclipsing the subject's notability in all other aspects and even (as in this case) where it has become a major part of his biography, since someone who is only famous within a particular industry often doesn't get much, if any, coverage outside it. (Your interpretation would eg. mean we would have to say he has been fired and his credits removed - clearly one of the main things he is notable at this point and something we cannot ignore - without saying why, even though the sources are extremely clear.) I would also not classify Zak Smith as a WP:LPI given that he is a n American artist, role-playing game author, and adult actor. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, this is not a parallel RfC. This is just to determine if WP:CONTEXTMATTERS doesn't apply to video game website polygon.com and it has the assets and resources in place to reliably originate complex investigative reporting of sex crimes in-between articles like "Polygon staff members draw their favorite Pokémon with human teeth"; if, indeed, sex crimes journalism is something anyone of average intelligence and with no other qualifications can do. In other words, is someone who does a good job investigating and reporting on the latest Pokémon Go cartoon characters ipso facto qualified to investigate and report on rape and sexual abuse? Chetsford ( talk) 03:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This honestly does look like WP:FORUMSHOPing to me - you've now opened two discussions in two separate places for this at the same time (and it looks like you opened this one only after it was clear the other was leaning towards inclusion). You've also derailed multiple comments in that discussion into massive threads in the middle of the RFC. You raised your WP:CONTEXTMATTERS objection there and it looks like most people disagreed with you, determining (correctly, in my view) that Polygon is sufficient to assess the bare existence and notability of allegations of misconduct against someone inside the industry. We are not relying on them to state that the allegations are true, only that they exist and are relevant within the context of the industry; given that Zak (as a writer and artist who is in fact slightly infamous for his public persona and his attempts to call attention to himself) is plainly a public figure, the bar for that isn't high once it becomes clear that the topic is WP:DUE, while a high-profile industry publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is in fact a good source for that. Either way, you've already raised the issue; now you need to slow down and let other people weigh in on this rather than putting every possible objection you can on blast in every available venue. Also, the dismissive way you keep referring to Polygon puzzles me, given that you haven't actually raised anything legitimately calling their reliability into question. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, however, multiple participants in the RfC raised the suggestion that the question of whether or not polygon.com was RS for reporting on sex crimes should be addressed at RSN and the output of that discussion brought back to the RfC for the information of participants. Again, this discussion has nothing to do with Zac Smith so I'm not certain why you're bringing him up. This is a narrow question about whether polygon.com can be used to source complex information on sexual abuse. While it may apply to an open RfC, the results are intended to guide the use of sources on other BLPs, generally. Chetsford ( talk) 04:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is obviously relevant to Zak Smith because the question of whether he is a public figure affects what sources can be used; you want to cite WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but that means you need to have an actual context. (In fact, I just realized you bafflingly not only omitted any mention of Zak S. but omitted any mention that we were discussing using it in the context of a figure's reputation and career in the game industry, which is obviously relevant.) Beyond that, I'll note that Polygon has been repeatedly cited by high profile publications for issues related to sexual misconduct in the game industry and similarly serious topics; see eg. [14] [15] [16]. They cover a lot of stuff like this and are treated like a reliable source for it per WP:USEBYOTHERS, so the way you're dismissing them just doesn't fit. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I glanced at that RFC and I see a few people that feel they want to hide the allegations under the rug but unfortunately: Zak meets PUBLICFIGURE, and his career was immediately affected by the allegations (he lost his job), which to me means we have to briefly mention them. Don't need any nitty gritty, we're not a celebrity rag, but to not mention them since they have been reported by multiple sources would be inappropriate. Polygon just happens to be the best source to start with. -- Masem ( t) 04:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between "want[ing] to hide allegations under the rug" and demanding rock solid sourcing when accusing a BLP of felonies. It makes me sad that you assume I am seeking to "hide allegations" rather than simply engaging in an honest and open discussion about the veracity of references being used. My record shows that I have previously expressed extensive discomfort citing "gamer media" to source our most sensitive article type - BLPs - (e.g. here) and I would challenge you to cite any evidence I'm trying to whitewash Zak Smith, whom I'd never even heard of prior to three days ago when I happened to see this unblock request from an account claiming to be himone of his the socks. Chetsford ( talk) 05:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC); edited 05:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Stating that accusations of sexual misconduct that may have criminal charges that have been made against a person is not the same as claiming a person has engaged in in that sexual misconduct in a criminal manner. As the RFC has rightly pointed out, no court has yet charged him with anything, so for all purposes, he is an innocent person of these crimes. If that is all that happened, we should not report it. But he was fired from WotC, and others had to react to that. That massive impact on his career is now something you can't ignore. Again, its not saying he's guilty, but that because of these allegations, WotC has distanced themselves from him. So it is clear to establish that this is not trying to pin a crime on Smith, but we still have to tread lightly in the BLP context. That said, this still where Polygon has all the necessary qualities of an RS that just simply reporting 1) accusations were made towards Smith related to sexual misconduct, 2) Smith denied it, 3) WotC distanced themselves, and a few additional events. Polygon is not the originating source of the accusations (it is not like Woodward and Bernstein exposing Watergate), they are simply documenting events that occurred over a brief period of time. As a high quality RS in the area of video and board games, this is a not controversial use for them because they are not originating the accusations - they may be the first RS publishing them but that doesn't make them the point of origin. The way I'm reading the comments in the RFC I get a feeling that that there are some trying to defend Smith there and thus are trying to find any way to keep the sourcing out despite the fact that this is standard quality sourcing and appropriate material to include. (I don't think it is appropriate to include the stuff related to his girlfriend yet that is only sourced to fandomentalists, as *that* looks like an iffy RS to be introducing some of the claims that are more specific and may not be necessary to discuss directly per BLPVICTIM. -- Masem ( t) 05:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with the accusation you made that I'm trying "to hide allegations under the rug". This is not evidence of a conspiracy to whitewash the article. Chetsford ( talk) 06:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note for other readers that my comments have been de-contextualized above by Aquillion and don't, therefore, reflect the thoughts I wished to express. Aquillion, per WP:REDACTED "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." While it may be fine to correct your comment while indicating changes you've made, simply putting up new content de-contextualizes my own replies to you. Chetsford ( talk) 05:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Polygon is more than just video games, though that is its largest focus - it includes board games, films, music, and some other areas. And speaking from the video games project, we consider it one of the better sources in that field (It is owned by Vox Media, it has an editorial staff, and has a strong reputation for fact checking). It covers the culture of video games and the other areas it touches, which has included in the last several years areas related to issues like sexual misconduct, workplace overload, misogynistic gaming culture, and so forth. They have contacts within the gaming community, and frequently show their work to speak anonymously to the people affected to try to get the story down before reporting the details. And as such, they would absolutely be reliable in how WP should briefly cover any sexual misconduct on notable BLPs such as at Zac Smith. Context does matter, if we were talking about, say, sexual misconduct allegations at a big Hollywood star or major politician that they would have no way to contact or the like. But here we're talking an author of tabletop RPGs who is clearly in Polygon's wheelhouse of expertise and contact, and thus fits the context. -- Masem ( t) 04:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Also to add, all Polygon is doing in the specific case of Zak Smith is summarizing primary sources as a secondary source. None of the details it gives are secrets (it links to all sources) and just gives a comprehensive story to understand the order of events. If a claim of sexual misconduct originated from a Polygon writer, that might be different, but the issues came out of Wizards of the Coast, his former employer, so that's different. So, yes, context matters, and in this case, easily supports the use of Polygon as a reliable documenter of record. -- Masem ( t) 04:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Note I asked Chetsford on July 6 if he would interested in bringing Polygon to this noticeboard because of our disagreement in the Zak Smith RfC but suggested doing so later in the month (mostly because I wanted Polygon to be vetted as a whole on the issue and not for the debate to be swallowed by a single case). I thought two editors bringing something to the noticeboard because they disagreed made sense. Chetsford has chosen to bring this to the noticeboard by himself without notifying me in anyway. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I responded to your comment [17] by declining your offer. "Chetsford has chosen to bring this to the noticeboard by himself without notifying me" I apologize I'm not able to provide you the kind-of white glove Wikipedia experience you'd like. Chetsford ( talk) 06:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Harassment (sexual or otherwise) is pervasive in every industry. I don't think that big name media outlets should be considered the only reliable sources on issues of sexual harassment. Outlets that focus on a single industry are uniquely positioned to be able to reliably report on harassment in their industries (they have contacts/sources and industry context). Polygon is a reliable source on the gaming industry and has a history of covering harassment when it occurs in the industry (here are a few articles unrelated to Zak Smith 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10). Polygon is also held to the same ethical standards as the rest of Vox Media and Vox Media cross posts articles from their different outlets (ie. A Polygon article might get posted on the Verge, a Verge article might get posted on Vox, etc). Both the Verge and Vox are on the RS list. Sariel Xilo ( talk) 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• In terms of examples of where Polygon is used as a source like this besides Zak Smith, here are two articles that cite link 5:

Chris Avellone In June 2020, Avellone was accused by several people of using his status to sexually assault and harass women who were looking to break into the games industry. Following these accusations, Techland announced that they and Avellone agreed to end his work on Dying Light 2.

Assassin's Creed Valhalla In June 2020, Polygon reported that Ismail "said he would step down from the project following accusations of multiple extramarital affairs with younger fans. [...] Ubisoft later confirmed his departure to Polygon".

Sariel Xilo ( talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Polygon have covered numerous controversial issues over the last decade. They were even at the centre of their own harassment cycle a few years back with Nick Robinson (not the political journalist, nor the US actor). Their own standing is pretty much one of the most well established of the tech / game media hubs (per Sariel Xilo above) for exactly the sort of content of monitoring and policing their own. This is particularly true post-Gamergate, where the idea of "video games" and "video game culture" and "toxic behaviour" became intrinsically and indelibly linked for all time. However, we should be clear that we are not getting into minutiae, and we should not be creating "controversy" sections or similar sections as a means of shaming / cancelling / "Righting Great Wrongs" etc and it should be dealt with in context of the biography. Koncorde ( talk) 06:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable All indications are that they have editorial standards in place and follow good practices. Moreover, the BLP that apparently prompted this discussion is definitely within their wheelhouse; it's not about harassment within, e.g., the Catholic Church or the American Museum of Natural History. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable The OP (who happens to have received his admin tools last year) is clearly engaged in forumshopping, and his failure to notify participants in an RfC that he is creating parallel discussions on this topic elsewhere is decidedly bad form. I dare say there is no news source better positioned to report on sexual conduct within the gaming industry, which is what the actual question is in this case.

Also note that the OP/admin entitled the Talk page discussion RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines, which is misleading hiven the nature of Polygon as a source. And yet this is typical of the hyperbole/mistakes to which this Admin is liable, at least within the subject matter of gaming. Newimpartial ( talk) 16:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. A news website that specializes in covering a particular industry should be considered reliable for covering all aspects of the industry, good or bad. The OP here has not shown any reason why Polygon can't be considered reliable in this instance. Calidum 20:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable they are reliable for coverage of the industry and related. Doesn’t seem like this should have really been in question. OP’s conduct does appear to be questionable, that probably needs to be looked into. Horse Eye Jack ( talk) 18:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable, and the specific citation of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS to support the opposite position is weird, since that's the specific policy that makes Polygon relevant in a discussion about industry individuals. Grandpallama ( talk) 22:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• faluninfo.net   

This is cited a number of times but appears to be an activist website for the Falun Gong cult, of no obvious reliability. Guy ( help!) 22:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

They claim to be the press office for Falun Gong. [18] They're clearly a self published source and we should treat them as we do any other "information" websites for religious movements. WP:ABOUTSELF likely applies here, assuming they're telling the truth about their affiliations. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. This website is absolutely a mouthpiece for the Falun Gong (a.k.a. Falun Dafa), as described by independent researcher Noah Porter who has written a number of scholarly articles about Falun Gong. Porter wrote in Falun Gong in the United States: An Ethnographic Study that faluninfo.net is a Falun Gong website. Benjamin Penny, another scholar who has written extensively about the Falun Gong, said in The Religion of Falun Gong (2012) that faluninfo.net is a Falun Gong website.

The website lists a number of staff [19] who may be quoted in news sources about the Falun Gong. For instance, Levi Browde, executive director of faluninfo.net, shows up a lot in reports about the Falun Gong. [20] [21] [22] [23] Similarly, spokesperson Erping Zhang has written or been quoted about Falun Gong topics. [24] [25] [26] I think we should count faluninfo.net unreliable, as well as any statement by a member of their staff. Binksternet ( talk) 23:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fine to use with attribution, and/or to cite the views of the Falun Gong group itself. This is basically the press office for the Falun Gong spiritual movement (dubbed a "cult" by the Chinese government, which tries to eradicate the practice through extrajudicial killings, mass imprisonment, reeducation programs, etc.) The Falun Dafa Information Centre is frequently cited by scholars ^{[1] [2] [3]}, human rights groups ^{[4] [5]}, and government bodies ^{[6] [7]}. It is sometimes treated as a reliable source in itself, or as a reliable source for the views of Falun Gong. Sometimes it's cited the caveat that data related to the persecution in China published by the Falun Dafa Information Centre cannot be independently verified. We can do the same on the encyclopedia. TheBlueCanoe 05:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  TheBlueCanoe, it is a new religious movement, which is the new name for cults. Being a cult does not mean that they are not ruthlessly suppressed, just as being wildly successful litigants does not make Scientology somehow not a cult. Guy ( help!) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, when contributing to a reliable source noticeboard, wouldn't it be best to keep the discussion neutral and not engage in tendentious comments about the subject in question? The entire status of the term "cult" is useless as a social science category (one woman's cult is another's religion, as the saying goes). By using this label here, other editors may well be prejudiced against the group and not refer to the actual data that should be determinative in the decision. Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 07:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Having visited the website and looked through it, and scanning the sources The Blue Canoe posted, I think we can say that the Falun Dafa Information Center is a reliable source for the views of the Falun Dafa Information Center, which seems to be the most professional entity Falun Gong has got to an official vehicle for communication. I.e. it's the source for Falun Gong's official view on itself and whatever else. It's a primary source so must be used with care, but it seems obviously reliable for representing Falun Gong's own views. TheBlueCanoe has shown how the source is used by human rights groups, scholars, and Congress. Thus it's a primary source, but there's no indication that it has any problems not inherent to all primary sources. Cleopatran Apocalypse ( talk) 07:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  Cleopatran Apocalypse, so it's a cult's source for the cult's views, and thus useless for anything else (e.g. statements of fact about China, where it would clearly be completely unreliable). Guy ( help!) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should avoid referring to spiritual movements as cults in this discussion. "Cult" is a very loaded term typically used as an insult and I don't see why it's necessary to insult someone's spirituality in this discussion about whether or not Falun Info is a reliable source. Regardless of whether you're right, insulting other people's spirituality is liable to cause flame wars and cause problems with harmonious editing. It potentially violates WP:NPA as well as the policy explicitly states that "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on... religious or political beliefs... directed against another editor or a group of editors" aren't allowed. Right now you're using a derogatory phrase about a religious belief and while you're not insulting anyone in particular there are certainly editors who subscribe to the belief system of Falun Gong. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously not reliable. Falun Gong is not a reliable source about itself: Keep in mind this is the same organization behind The Epoch Times and numerous other propaganda extensions, who are absolutely not reliable. Best to stick to secondary reliable sources on these topics for evertything about the organization and topic. Beware single-purpose accounts swarming around this topic. :bloodofox: ( talk) 08:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Obvious to whom? According to what policies? It's certainly not obvious to the scholars and researchers cited above who treat the Falun Dafa Information Centre as a reliable source—either reliable in itself, or reliable for statements of Falun Gong's positions.
• The Falun Dafa Information Center is not "behind" the Epoch Times. These are two legally separate entities. Founders of these organizations share the same religious faith, but it makes no sense to treat religions with millions of followers as monolithic entities. TheBlueCanoe 23:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• The normal Wikipedia policies apply here. [27] Obviously Faluninfo.net is not a reliable source about anything else than Falun Gong's claims about itself. As long as it's contextualized in this way, I don't see a problem from an encyclopedic perspective. I would also warn against the ideologues swarming around these articles; especially the ones who already have a history of long-term bans because of their battleground mentality, edit warring, and personal attacks in other topic areas. [28] Bstephens393 ( talk) 16:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As of right now, this topic is outdated. It is full of disinformation. The United Nations Torture Committee has just recently condemned electronic harassment as a crime of humanity. They held a video taped press conference at the UN headquarters. It is now known as a violation of human rights. It is a fact this is happening to people all over the world. It does not belong under medical topics or psychological illnesses. It is not a delusion and the UN has admitted it is a fact this happens to targeted individuals.

Which leads to the Targeted Individuals page needing to be edited as well. It is not a delusion it is reality.

My proof is this article, one of four pdf on the torture committee site. Official link is at the bottom.

– — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § 

Official Report on Electronic Harassment

Electromagnetic harassment with torturous patterns (electromagnetic torture, cybernetic torture or cybertorture): “the crime that people complain most about on the internet/social media” Relevance to neuroweapons as well as “Health Attacks" or "Health Incidents" of U.S. and Canada diplomats Dynamics conducive to corruption and torture: Neuroweapons having top secret status similarly to “weapons of mass destruction”are expected to be subject to limited or non-existent parliamentary / congressional supervision Electromagnetic harassment with torturous patterns has been referred to as the “crime that people complain most about on the internet/social media”.

It is argued that the “health incidents” or “health attacks”, according to the terms of the U.S. State Department, which affected the U.S. Embassy diplomats in Cuba and China (and similarly the Canada Embassy diplomats in Cuba) are linked to this phenomenon [*].

A precedent is found in the microwave irradiation of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow (1953–1976) [*]. Many thousands of people internationally complain of being electromagnetically harassed with torturous patterns (electromagnetic torture, cybernetic torture or cybertorture).

Health attacks are currently the object of an interagency investigation of the U.S. government coordinated by the “Health Incident Task Force” created by the U.S. Department of State [*]. Three scientific publications present evidence of brain damage of the diplomats [*][*][*].

A U.S. Congressional hearing reiterated the diagnosis of brain injury as a result of the attacks [*]. The U.S. Government Accountability Office assessed the response of the State Department, published a report [*] and presented its findings to Congress [*].

Given the neurological nature of the attack, the technological means that would have been used are defined as neuroweapons.

A group of experts, including the first physician who examined the U.S. diplomats, gave presentations on the health attacks at a neuroweapon event held by SOFWERX and the U.S. Special Operation Command [*]. A briefing of the Pentagon Chiefs of Staff was conducted by the same group of experts [*].

U.S. victims of electromagnetic harassment have provided comment to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (created by President Obama) in March and May 2011 [*][*].

In Europe, the Ministry of Defense of Poland conducted a geographical analysis of complaints of Polish victims for electromagnetic attacks in 2016 [*]. Following correspondence with the Ministry [*], Polish victims have been heard by the Inspectorate of Innovative Defense Technologies of the Ministry of Defense.

Among different protests against electromagnetic harassment/torture, two international rallies have been held on the 29th August in 2019 and 2018 [*].

Victims of electromagnetic harassment, often called "Targeted Individuals" or "TIs" report:

1. Torturous routines such as head and body electromagnetic stimulation e.g. intense sudden contractions of (surface) muscle fibers equivalent to painful stimulus of being hit, different stimulation patterns generating miscellaneous effects e.g. pain, tingling, pins-and-needle effect and also intense heating, burning or itching sensations.

2. Artificial tinnitus, hearing voices and mental manipulation i.e. mental content presentation/insertion and extraction (personal thought content being repeated to them in an interval of a few seconds).

3. Manipulation via brain-to-brain interface: A remote human operator exerts a dominant cognitive influence determining certain functions (e.g. a motor function such as moving a limb). Targeted Individuals are being tortured silently while certain phenomena such as "hearing the global Hum" which affects 4% of the world population [*] may be indicative of the fact that the effects are being experienced by a much larger population than that of targeted individuals.

Given the extremely advanced nature of the symptoms reported, e.g. mental manipulation, the associated neuroweapons, also termed “weapons of mass disruption” should be considered equivalent, in terms of national security, to “weapons of mass destruction”.

It is expected that these would be top secret, would be handled only by few people in the highest military ranks, and would probably be subject to limited or non-existent parliamentary/congressional supervision (cf. generic reporting citing indispensable covert national security operations).

This setting would cancel institutional controls, thereby creating environments conducive to corruption. It is important that society addresses electromagnetic harassment with torturous patterns or electromagnetic torture (cybernetic torture or cybertorture).

It constitutes a significant human rights issue with severe risks on the health, well-being and the life of individuals. It is also important to comprehend the implications, as the complaints of the targeted individuals referring to both torture as well as mental manipulation may be indicative of a future where mental interference may be performed in large scale with imperceptible nuances and nudging of thinking towards certain directions e.g. for political or economic interference. It is urgent to address this phenomenon.

^[1]

^[2]

𝔍𝖚𝖑𝖎𝖊𝖙❤𝕯𝖎𝖑𝖑𝖎𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖗

Hello,

In order to reference it in an article I am writing, I'd like to know if https://vehlinggo.com is considered by Wikipedia as a reliable source. Thank you very much for your help!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Allichou ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Allichou: for what topic and content? Which piece? From what I see from their about, it a one-man show ("Vehlinggo is the creation of longtime journalist and writer Aaron Vehling. He serves as Vehlinggo’s publisher, editor-in-chief, senior writer, and occasional podcaster.") with some contributors in addition to Vehling, which would make it borderline for most content.-- Bob not snob ( talk) 07:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Is The Intercept considered a reliable source in the context of political news? Its page on WP:RS/P only mentions that it is "generally reliable for news" but "is a biased source and its use may need to be attributed". The two discussions linked don't seem to cover its political reporting, with the first discussing it in a general manner and the second in reporting on science (in this case, the Amazon rainforest). Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 17:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Just for clarification, this question is with regards to The Intercept as a source for political news specifically (whether it be government-related, election-related, etc.), not about its reliability in general news reporting. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Attribute for political reporting I would consider The Intercept to be a usable source for political reporting, but it should be attributed. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable Relevant data point. In 2011, in one private email, Neera Tanden (responding to an email titled "Re: Should Libya pay us back?") cited the US deficit, said "having oil rich countries partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me." Compare and contrast what Tanden said to what the Intercept claimed: [29] "Other emails [sic.] show Tanden arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues to repay the U.S." HouseOfChange ( talk) 18:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of quoting one email and assuming that it is the same as the "other emails" mentioned, did Tanden ever actually say that Greenwald got it wrong? You can see Tanden's response to the Intercept story in this article in Salon. [30] Second, even if you establish that Glenn Greenwald said one thing and Neera Tanden said another thing, on what basis do you conclude that Tanden is telling the truth and Greenwald is lying? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution Have the usual editorial controls and are frequently cited for their investigative reports. They tend to be a tad sketchy on source origins (not the rigor of like WaPost, but not completely back-alley sourcing) so would require attribution of anything contestable. The example by HouseOfChange to me looks like a common slight stretch of the truth that many other sources will do and nothing that raising any immediate flags (compared to Daily Mail falsification). -- Masem ( t) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is falsification, and literally false, to transform one vague sentence in one email into multiple "emails" and "arguing that Libyans should be forced to turn over large portions of their oil revenues." HouseOfChange ( talk) 00:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you know how many emails there were for certain, particularly when one email is "private"? Perhaps the Intercept had access to additional emails. -- Masem ( t) 00:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

These were the stolen Podesta emails, and the Libya claims from Intercept were widely chewed over by their ecosystem. But the only evidence any of these folks ever brought forward to support those claims was that one email. So perhaps they had more secret evidence that they concealed but it seems unlikely. HouseOfChange ( talk) 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And you know that "These were the stolen Podesta emails"... how? The story simply says "The emails, provided to The Intercept by a source authorized to receive them..." You are accusing The Intercept of bald faced lying about there being multiple emails. Can you point to a source where Tanden claimed that there was only one? Or even a source that shows Tanden saying that The Intercept got it wrong instead of saying her internal private emails don't reflect the official CAP position? Evidence, please. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news, but with attribution for opinions - as with all sources that publish political opinions/analysis/commentary rather than simply reporting the news about an election, a natural disaster, double homicide, bridge collapse, etc. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Biased but reliable. Reliable for news, attribute for political reporting and opinion. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for political news with attribution. The Intercept has a reputation for high-quality investigative journalism, particularly with its stories based on leaked official documents, and has significantly contributed to the coverage of topics including the PRISM surveillance program, Operation Socialist, the Drone Papers, and other controversies related to international politics. The publication does explicitly declare a point of view, as it states that it is " dedicated to holding the powerful accountable through fearless, adversarial journalism", and I recommend in-text attribution on this basis. However, this point of view has not harmed The Intercept's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. —  Newslinger  talk 05:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Question does the Intercept make a difference between factual news and opinion?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, The Intercept's opinion pieces are placed under their "Voices" opinion section. If either _VOICES or the name of one of the publication's columnists is on the top-left of the page, it is an opinion piece. They ask for opinion pitches to be labeled explicitly. —  Newslinger  talk 10:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news but Requires attribution for comment, due to bias. It is open about its bias and has a record of strong factual reporting. I tend not to use it, though, because a reliable source presented in the context of a wrapper of biased commentary is not ideal. Guy ( help!) 13:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable and attribute for political reporting. The outlet has broken a number of important stories, and it has a solid history (and has issued retractions in the past, in a manner much clearer than other outlets). Jlevi ( talk) 13:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Needs attribution According to Jewish Telegraph Agency, The Intercept's founder "has relentlessly criticized Israel and its political leadership, and at times has invoked tropes of dual loyalty in attacking the pro-Israel community". Politico described the website as "the loudest voice attacking Democrats from the left". ^[3] b uidh e 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, sure, but does anyone without a dog in the fight say that? We know from long experience that any criticism of the apartheid regime in the occupied territories is represented by some Jewish commentators as anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and hatred of Israel. Guy ( help!) 18:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not going to say what my personal opinion is, I am just stating one of the Intercept's biases so that editors are aware what its viewpoint is. b uidh e 20:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the current consensus that it's generally reliable for facts but it's a very strongly biased news source. While it doesn't appear to be to the point of outright lies, their presentation and contextualization of the facts they present are heavily affected by their bias. Their incredibly strong anti-Israel position is also noted here and I believe we should attribute as well as consider it generally unreliable for factual statements relating to that conflict on account of their strong bias. For example, take a look at this article (not labelled as "voices" or by an opinion writer). [31] It goes into a very detailed account that almost (but not quite) says that two people murdered a Palestinian activist named Alex Odeh that's written with a very clear slant towards only one side of the issue. It then makes a claim that multiple people living in Israel with different names are the suspects in the killing. While it's quite possible these claims are true, the article is very heavily biased towards one side of the issue at hand with practically no opposing views in the article beyond those used to advance the author's clear agenda. I would not be comfortable with this being used in a WP:BLP on the suspects in this case without other corrobating sources. Likewise with these two articles [32] [33] that very clearly show deep bias on this conflict. We should consider using other sources if possible when discussing facts relating to this topic.

Additionally, for their investigative journalism we should always attribute, as investigative journalism is much closer to a primary source than a secondary source. This is common sense but should be re-iterated. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable for news; attribute opinions. - DoubleCross ( ‡) 17:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable. Time and again they are proven right even on stories where other reliable sources are initially skeptical. This includes American politics but also reporting on Operation Carwash in Brazil. Connor Behan ( talk) 02:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Attribute for reporting. Other media mostly attributes. The Intercept did produce some notable investigative journalism pieces, however most of each reporting is of a lower caliber (also fabrication scandal) and mixes advocacy, or as The Intercept puts its: "dedicated to holding the powerful accountable through fearless, adversarial journalism" [34]. Beyond the stated "adversarial journalism", politically The Intercept is very much to the left of most other reporting.-- Bob not snob ( talk) 09:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for news, attribute for opinion. Wether or not it is reliable for news should depend on one thing: it's "track-record". And its "track-record" for getting the news right is excellent, AFAIK, Huldra ( talk) 20:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for all news, and as should be the case with any other news outlet, we should attribute opinions to The Intercept when describing them. - Darouet ( talk) 17:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for news and use attribution for opinion pieces, per Huldra and others. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable without attribution for news and political reporting; include opinion with attribution. If the presence of bias requires use of attribution, that would apply to almost all sources we use. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable and attribute opinions, per Atsme, DoubleCross, Huldra, Petrarchan47 et al.-- Davide King ( talk) 09:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mostly reliable for factual reporting, but it is quick to assume things that paint what they deem as establishment or American hegemony as true. I would definitely attribute in election reporting. Note: I am politically biased against the Intercept. Mèþru ( talk) 14:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the reliability of Jacobin, particularly on the issues of economic and political reporting? It's not currently listed at WP:RSP and a search through the archives didn't find any discussions on Jacobin specifically, usually only passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 02:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is a strongly biased opinion magazine, so usable for the attributed opinion of contributors. I would not consider it generally reliable for facts according to the usual test: If I read something in Jacobin and not any other source, I would not believe it was true without confirmation. b uidh e 05:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• While it is a Magazine that focuses particularly on economic and political reporting with a strong left/socialist bias, mediabiasfactcheck.com rates their factual reporting as "high", noting that "they have not failed a fact check" yet. Mottezen ( talk) 06:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Mottezen, WP:MBFC is not a reliable source. b uidh e 08:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, but the commentary on the page I linked is way more inciteful than the 3 comments in this section that say it "it is not reliable enough for reporting facts in relation to economic and political news" or "Yellow-rated at best". No example or evidence were provided to show its so-called unreliability for these topics. Mottezen ( talk) 17:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  No source is considered reliable by default. Supporters of a source being reliable must show that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:RS. b uidh e 17:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good, now we return to my original comment. Mottezen ( talk) 18:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Expressly and proudly partisan source. Not actually liars as far as I know, but I would use any other source. Yellow-rated at best, use attribution - David Gerard ( talk) 10:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I suspect it is not reliable enough for reporting facts in relation to economic and political news, as articles on that topic would be opinion pieces. However, I think that some articles may be used for some specialist historical issues e.g. around the history of the left. This article, for example, is used in some of our historical WP articles on the history of anti-fascism, and seems solidly researched. This article is by an academic who has published a book on this historical topic, antisemitism among the Bolsheviks, which seems like it would be a reliable source for that sort of topic. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• It is pointless to go through tens of thousands of magaxines and determining which ones to add to the blacklist. Editors should have the basic skills to determine if a source is the best and most reliable for the article they are writing. That means, as User:Bobfrombrockley points out, we might want to use them as a source for topics that the mainstream media ignore and most readers are interested in. In my experience the only reason editors use alternative media for articles about major topics is if they contain information ignored in mainstream media. IOW information that lacks weight for inclusion. We shouldn't use rs to correct for errors not following weight. BTW most Jacobin articles are opinion pieces which are not reliable sources wherever they are published. TFD ( talk) 20:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion to deprecate or blacklist Jacobin, only a discussion on its reliability (and perhaps how to list it at WP:RSP). Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 23:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably a bit early to list on RSP at this point (especially given the recent RfC on RSP RfCs). In any case, I haven't seen many cases of inappropriate usage. Jlevi ( talk) 19:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above, that Jacobin articles should be treated more like opinion pieces, and in using them (with attribution), the political orientation of the magazine should be borne in mind (e.g. views are representative of the type of people who don't think "Jacobin" is a pejorative). I don't think that completely precludes use, however, and even in opinion articles, the facts relied on may be correct. TheBlueCanoe 23:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I don't see it as anything more than a socialist propaganda outlet. It's obviously going to lean to the left and thus it is too biased to be used. At best it could maybe be used only if accompanied by other sources that don't conform to its point of view, as a means of balancing said bias. SolarFlash ^Discussion 23:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A source being biased does not necessarily mean it's unreliable. Those two aspects are usually independent of each other, although in some cases they do correlate. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 01:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly fact based, with a fact-checking process. It's connected to a peer-reviewed journal Catalyst and many of its contributors are academics. It also has fairly accomplished journalists writing for it. It's definitely ideologically driven though – but I suppose being ideological and also fact-based isn't necessarily a contradiction. I see it cited often in NYT and elsewhere. Dsakey1978 ( talk) 03:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Generally reliable but not always due. The source is cited fairly widely in left-leaning sources, including plenty that are far more moderate than Jacobin itself. The outlet is described as one of the most important sources representing the young left. For that reason, it may be useful where that viewpoint should be represented. For instance, Slate describes it as, "the house organ of America’s far-left boomlet over the past decade", a NYT opinion describes it as "an influential publication among young leftists," and Vox notes that it "has in the past five years become the leading intellectual voice of the American left." In 2013, Wired describes it as an emerging "intellectual outlet" alongside The New Inquiry and the LA Review of Books. Again, articles don't always need this perspective. Where they do require that perspective, however, Jacobin is a good choice. Jlevi ( talk) 12:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just realized that this was about economic and political reporting specifically. Jacobin has a lot of serious academic contributors, and I would probably look to them to determine reliability before I look to the publishing outlet itself. That said, I haven't seen any major problems, and there seems to be standard editorial protocols along with a quite robust editorial board with 10+ full-time editors, 10+ contributing editors, and a separate editorial board. We know the editorial board actually does things, because they have issued retractions in the past and some of their editors have been the subject of profiles in the New York Times. These include a profile of Bhaskar Sunkara (and the site), the site's founding editor and someone who has been in left-wing journalism for quite a while. This piece also mentions Corey Robin, a Jacobin contributing editor, political science professor, and journalist. Jlevi ( talk) 02:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments about Jacobin as a primarily nonfactual opinion/commentary make much sense given how Jacobin is used by others. This publication is very often referenced for statements of fact, including in peer-reviewed journals and award-winning nonfiction:

• Referenced (as the only reference for this fact) in Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World to link the rise of Breitbart to the rise of the Tea Party. This book is pretty notable, having won the Lionel Gelber Prize.
• Referenced to support statements about the relation between sex workers and directors in a dissertation.
• Referenced to support statements about feminist activism in the early 2000s in an academic book published by the University of Chicago Press.
• Referenced to support statements about Trump-era trade policy published in a peer-reviewed journal here.
• Referenced to support statements about how Teach for America interfaces with the market for teacher labor in the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the AACTE.
• More generally, The New Statesman notes in 2013, while Jacobin was still getting established: "Jacobin authors have been cited by columnists in Bloomberg, on the reliably liberal, pro-Democratic Party TV network MSNBC, and elsewhere in the less-than-radical-spectrum." (Note that this statement is somewhat different from Jacobin itself being cited)

Note that in most of these cases, statements from Jacobin are simply stated as facts, without explicit attribution. These sources are not treating these Jacobin pieces as standard opinion articles. We can look to Nieman Lab, the Harvard journalism institute, to understand why. It describes most articles in Jacobin as "analytical essays", and it seems to place them in a vein of academic analysis for the masses. Not all pieces take this form, of course, but it makes the wide citations more understandable. Jlevi ( talk) 00:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable: Jacobin only publishes opinion pieces. They never do reporting. It is true that they have a lot of academics writing for them, but they are all coming from a far-left communist perspective. Moreover even those academics are writing opinion pieces. Their status on reliable sources should reflect this. The editors that claim they have a fact checking process have not shown this to be true, they have just proclaimed it to be true. Nobody that writes for them comes from a neutral perspective. I second the call for yellow at best. BuilderJustLikeBob ( talk) 04:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, attribute, very explicitly a biased source, but that does not mean they are not reliable. They seem to have a solid reputation for factual accuracy, and they are home to numerous experts. Given their open biases towards the topics of politics and economics and opinion-based coverage it should be attributed though. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 06:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable but attribute opinions and take care regarding due weight, per Devonian Wombat and Jlevi above. Their focus generally seems to be more on analysis and commentary than day-to-day, shoeleather reporting; I doubt that "Jacobin reports the occurrence of a specific event that nobody else does" would actually be a failure mode that happens very often. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Only usable for attributed statements of opinion. I would not rely on this for statements of fact (even when attributed) because it's an opinion journal, and for factual statements there will nearly always be a better source. For statements of opinion, "Jane Doe wrote X in Jacobin" is fine, but agree with the due weight concerns. Neutrality ^talk 04:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable including for factual reporting on politics and economics. As someone else said “bracingly rigorous and polemical in a really thought-provoking way”. Burrobert ( talk) 05:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, but it could depend on the author of the specific article. The Jacobin has a lot of outstanding expert columnists who are certainly reliable sources. The Jacobin has great coverage of Central America by Hilary Goodfriend, a scholar who has also been published in many academic journals and history anthologies. Unless there's a good reason to doubt the specific facts being reported in a given article, I would definitely use this magazine as a citation. Homemade Pencils ( talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Attribute As it have clear political agenda also WP:DUE should be taken in consideration when using the source -- Shrike ( talk) 19:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. In typical articles, factual claims that aren't part of the author's own expertise are themselves attributed to sources. So in that sense citing Jacobin is just a shortcut. But for establishing that some issue has sufficient WP:WEIGHT within left wing politics, it definitely helps to cite Jacobin. Connor Behan ( talk) 02:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see Jacobin as reliable. It has no obvious basis to be represented as a reporter of fact, being priomarily an opinion / commentary journal, and its opinion is clearly biased. Guy ( help!) 15:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Attribution and weight should be established and taken on a case by case analysis per Jlevi et al. Unlike many right-wing outlets and a few others left-wing ones, Jacobin's bias does not result in conspiracy theories, fake news, misinformation, etc. I do not think their explicit view of socialism should be used to claim its unreliablity. As long as Jacobin remains factual and reliable as it is, that should not be used as disqualifier. Most reliable sources are pro-capitalism; they may not say it so explicitly like Jacobin does in the opposite direction, yet they remain based on facts and are generally reliable. This is not science vs. pseudoscience where false balance applies. As far as I know, the main criticism of socialism from a mainstream or neoclassical perspective is that there is a lack of incentive.-- Davide King ( talk) 02:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Only usable for attributed statements of opinion, and even then should only be used with caution per WP:Due weight. The source is explicitly and clearly biased towards promoting a political POV held by few economists and public policy experts, which will obviously slant how it covers anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per Jlevi, who gives the best analysis I see in this discussion. I'd support using attribution always or almost always, and of course contributor's opinions are contributor's opinions, like any news source—but when those contributors are experts then it's an expert's opinion. Jacobin has a political perspective that is far from the mainstream; this is not the same as it having a strong bias, which I would take to mean "is willing to sacrifice factual accuracy for political interests", and I'm not seeing any evidence of that happening here. — Bilorv ( talk) 00:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable on facts, always good for left-wing commentary: Jacobin does not tend to post false stories or incorrect facts, but their coverage is always going to have a socialist or left-wing bias. Nevertheless, they are a great source when providing Responses or Opinions or Reactions, since they represent a strong strain of the American leftism movement. PickleG13 ( talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable for factual reporting, but articles generally include lots of bias in the analysis. It may take effort to separate that from the pure fact. Mèþru ( talk) 14:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, but attribute opinions. Some editors here need to do a better job of understanding that partisan doesn't automatically mean unreliable, and if they don't understand that, their !votes should be discounted by the closer per the WP:PARTISANSOURCES policy, which states clearly that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Several others have established above that Jacobin publishes a very high-quality product, and that's sufficient for green-lighting. {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems reliable yet heavily biased. While the factual reporting is done fine, it is also somewhat opinionated. When it comes to the Cold War they lean towards a pro-Soviet bias. However they are not entirely anti-US, and have released criticisms of the Chinse government.

Rake a section from this article, Socialists Should Side With Workers — Not the Chinese or American Ruling Class:

President Donald Trump and his cronies have repeatedly used racist terms like the “Chinese virus,” elevated conspiracy theories claiming that a lab in Wuhan intentionally released COVID-19 to devastate the US, and escalated Washington’s military standoff with Beijing by deploying a flotilla of warships to the South China Sea. Joe Biden has attacked Trump for being soft on China and released a deeply sinophobic ad earlier this month.

On the other side of the Pacific, Xi Jinping’s government has attempted to turn the pandemic — which it too mishandled initially — to its own advantage. Beijing has sent tests, ventilators, and masks to many other countries, attempting to project itself as a benevolent global power even as it refuses to concede basic labor rights to workers at home.

This is not totally one-sided. It criticizes China right after it criticizes Trump. They never once promoted a blatant lie in these two paragraphs. They're right- Trump supported conspiracy theories on COVID-19. You can see the author doesn't like either Xi nor Trump. But it doesn't change that there are several problems in this piece- Can you imagine if Wikipedia were to describe Republicans as Trumpian "cronies"? And as for Biden's ad, the main focus of that video was to attack Trump, not China.

In this article, they use a picture of Biden with his mouth in a weird position in some attempt to make him look like a right-wing buffoon.

Do not get me wrong. Jacobin Magazine is a very credible reference and has been applauded worldwide for its high credibility. A blacklist of the website by WIkipedia would be ludicrous. What I am trying to show is that Jacobin is an Opinion Magazine. When citing Jacobin it would in most cases be the better option to portray it as a differing viewpoint to a political argument. Dunutubble ( talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As I have been cleaning up royalty pages (removing blogs, Royal Ark, The Royal Forums, other royalcruft) I've come across a surprisingly conserved cross-cultural trend when it comes to sourcing the sundry Titles and Honors awarded to people, which is to cite a picture of the subject wearing [what is presumed to be?] the badge/sash/medal in question. These are images such as this used to support the assertion that Queen Anne of Romania is a recipient of "Knight Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of Carol I". I interpret this as blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and remove such refs whenever I see them, but considering how widespread this format is, and given that I have been reverted before, I wanted to ensure there is consensus. I couldn't immediately find a policy stating "you can't just find a picture of Prince Keith wearing what users on some royalty forum or pinterest have tentatively identified as The Order of the Meticulous Hairnet and cite it as a source for his being a recipient of said honor", although I didn't look particularly hard. You also can't just wholesale delete citations of the form " Images of Queen Bayleigh on 3 March 1991" as sometimes they do have an accompanying caption explicitly mentioning the award.

So what does Wikipedia think? JoelleJay ( talk) 20:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that someone wearing a badge indicating that they received an honor is like me putting on a t-shirt that says "#1 Curler"... it's an act of self-publication. And while we accept self-publication for people's statements about themselves, we limit it to things where people would not have a reason to lie - i.e., they are not boastful. An honor is inherently a boast. As such, no, someone pictured wearing the badge is not sufficient. --#1 Curler Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay, No. This is WP:OR. It requires individual Wikipedians to recognise the regalia. Guy ( help!) 23:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Guy - it's OR. Neutrality ^talk 23:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely not usable. If it's self-published it clearly fails the unduly self-serving clause of WP:ABOUTSELF, and even if it's published elsewhere it is WP:OR to draw conclusions from it without some statement in the source indicating what the image means. -- Aquillion ( talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) So, the same IP ( 148.252.132.141) from earlier reverted me again here and here on Princess Marie of Romania to add back images (and blogs and forums) as references, despite the discussion we sort of had on the talk page. It would be helpful if there was a concrete policy to point to for this (apparently not obvious) example of OR; I don't think it would aid in this case since the IP doesn't seem to care (they were blocked 24 hrs for vandalism elsewhere on the 18th), but for good faith edits by people coming from royalty fansites it would at least be an explicit link to shoot them in an edit summary rather than trying to explain the nuances of OR. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC) No, not only as the identification is OR (is it the Victoria Cross or the Victorious Cross) there is the fact that it may have been self awarded. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not, interpretation of an image is OR. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It could be enough that the original photographer verified it but caution is still required. Generally, no. Zero ^talk 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with all of the above objections. Not only does it take a Wikipedian to individually decide they recognize the medal/ribbon, it supposes that they do with exact accuracy, which cannot really be guaranteed, not only because of photo quality in modern subjects, but potential artistic license or error in old paintings. While the results are probably correct in most cases, that's not how we write an encyclopedia.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to say we shouldn't (in general) rely on photos as a source. Firstly we'd need to ensure the PHOTOS are reliable, as photos are often doctored by people and a random photo could have been altered in many ways. Secondly even if the photos are real there's no guarantee the person wearing the regalia has actually been awarded the medals in question. A person wearing medals is essentially someone making the claim they were awarded the honours in question; it's certainly "unduly self serving" under the first criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF. I can post a photo of myself wearing the Medal of Honor if I want and nobody can stop me. However it's not necessarily original research to identify specific medals in a photo. Many photographs of awards are very unambiguous and while in some unclear cases it would be WP:OR to identify a medal nobody is going to dispute that File:Joe Biden Receives Presidential Medal of Freedom.jpg is unambiguously a photo of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Interpretation of an image isn't allowed but in very clear cases there's no interpretation or ambiguity involved.

Additionally there are cases where it probably is OK to use photos of medals as sources. For example, an uncaptioned photograph published by a reliable source of a person receiving a medal is probably OK. For example if someone finds an uncaptioned government archival photo of John Doe very clearly being awarded a Purple Heart from an officer that would be OK to use as a source because it's not "self-published", someone else is giving Doe the award, and the source (government) is reliable and it's unambiguous what a Purple Heart is. Likewise for official military portrait photos of someone which I believe are often used as an implicit source for decorations, as it's not self-published (the government creates the photo) so it doesn't fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. Take Mark Milley who's the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The image in the article is a good enough citation for the fact he was awarded a Army Service Ribbon as you can very clearly see he's wearing the ribbon on the bottom right of his chest so it's not WP:OR to do so. There's no interpretation about it. Nor is it a self published source as it's a US government produced photo. I think that while in the cases User:JoelleJay has provided it's clear those images shouldn't be used as a source, there are definitely many other cases where it IS appropriate to use uncaptioned images as sources and we shouldn't make a general rule here without considering its broader applicability or that there may be exemptions to the rule. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 06:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Chess: My feeling is there still isn't any reason to use images as refs since, if the awarding of the honor was notable enough for there to exist photos from reliable sources, there should be supporting text somewhere as well. In the unusual circumstance that a recognizable award is visible in an official governmental/military picture but there is no written record of its reception or mention of it by an RS, then in my opinion we should not be acknowledging the award in the subject's page. It's also not clear that there's no interpretation about it regarding the Army Service Ribbon; could the average reader identify it in a portrait? For the Purple Heart medal (although not the service ribbon), I could maybe see an official picture of it being awarded as theoretically an RS on its own, but practically I find it highly unlikely this would not be accompanied by some textual detail somewhere, in which case referencing the image would be redundant. Maybe others here like Guy, Aquillion, SMcCandlish, etc. have more insight on whether such an RS image would be DUE to include as a source in addition to a citation for a) a written account by the same source describing the events taking place in the picture; b) a written account by a different source describing the events in the picture; c) a written account otherwise verifying the subject is a recipient. Would this be an example of excessive refs, or would it just be treated the same as any other RS for a multiply-referenced statement? That is to say, does WP think an uncaptioned but evocative and unambiguous image provides further information or evidentiary support in the way a second news article or book does? My guess would be no. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ JoelleJay: Probably the most important exception to creating a rule like the above would be military awards based on official portraits, as it seems to be current practice to list awards shown in the official portrait without a citation. I don't think we should override that consensus here; that's something that should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history as they appear to have had multiple discussions on this issue already. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 111#RfC: The use of medal ribbon pictograms in articles for example.

While I agree with you that there's often not much of a reason to use uncaptioned images as sources for honours and it's hard for me to come up with scenarios where it would be necessary, that doesn't mean there might not be plenty of scenarios where it is appropriate to use uncaptioned images as sources. The point I'm more or less trying to make is that we should be flexible and not dictate a very wide rule with no exceptions in the consensus of this discussion. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It should not be re-discussed at WT:MILHIST; that's a house organ of the very editors doing things that other editors consider to be OR and reliance on dubious sources or things we do not treat as sources. This should be discussed right here, or at WP:NORN, or at WP:VPPOL. The entire nature of the problem is that MILHIST (or some participants therein) have come to an in-our-little-echo-chamber decision to do what they are doing, without broader consultation, and we already know there are objections (since we're making them right now). Wikiprojects don't get to make up their own counter-policy "rules"; cf. WP:CONLEVEL.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been many more discussions over there with far more people than there are here. Overturning that long-standing consensus as a side effect of a small discussion relating to royalty would violate the spirit of WP:CONLEVEL in favour of the letter. Just because RS/N is a more "global" board than the military history talkpage doesn't mean we should overturn multiple large discussions with a smaller one here. I support having a discussion have on the merits of including honours based on official military portraits but let's make it a separate heading and a formal RfC where we can notify the people who might actually want to contribute to this discussion. The reason why I thought it might be a good idea to have a discussion on the military history WikiProject is that they'll be significantly affected by this change and I'm unsure if any of them are aware of the discussion we're having here. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

We have WP:VPPOL for a reason. That's pretty much always the proper venue when a wikiproject is doing something that others have an issue with.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Then that's a discussion you should start. The heading and the proposal of this discussion doesn't make it clear whether it applies to military biographies and this is something we should seek wider consensus on. Anyways I'll notify MILHIST of the discussion now since it would affect them. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Similar discussions have appeared here before (e.g., recently). The sourcing described is obviously inappropriate. The behavior being described as standard for MILHIST is also obviously inappropriate. -- JBL ( talk) 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely not, this is textbook WP:OR. Instead, we should demand stronger sources for images actually depicting what they purport to depict. I'm sure a lot of crap gets into Wikipedia that way, since WP:RS and WP:OR are ignored or have been deemed not to apply. Furthermore, if an award has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources it lacks WP:DUE. ( t · c) buidhe 05:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the suggestion above that this is acceptable practice at MILHIST is not correct, SMcCandlish. Your snide shots at the project are not based on the observable facts. Establishing medal entitlements from photographs comes up occasionally on the MILHIST talk page (the linked discussion is from eight years ago, there have been several discussions since then, and a lot has changed since 2012). I agree it is not a matter for MILHIST to determine, it is a matter for the community. However, I have reviewed most MILHIST-tagged articles at FAC and Milhist ACR and a significant proportion of the GANs over the last six or so years, and I have never seen someone trying to use a photograph as a source for medal entitlements at any of those levels of assessment. That's not to say it wasn't done in the early days of the project. My view on it is as I expressed earlier in this thread, it is OR, and I believe that is the current consensus at MILHIST. The answer to this is to find a reliable secondary source (or even an official primary source independent of the subject like war records made available to the public) that establishes what awards an individual received, and use that. If sources aren't available, just leave it out. We don't conduct OR just to satisfy curiosity of someone who sees the photo and wonders what the ribbons mean. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I see now that my position was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the current consensus and I've retracted my previous statement. Chess (talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 07:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I haven't said anything snide, but perhaps over-generalizing. To tie this into much broader related discussions that happened earlier: We know for a fact that wikiproject-centered "make up our own standards" behavior is the source of this and many closely problems surrounding hono[u]rs, titles, etc. We know that the majority of it is coming from WP:ROYALTY in particular. To the extent that participants in MILHIST are contributing to the problem, then it is even more a wikiproject-related problem than we originally realized. If MILHIST in the aggregate are mostly not (and, as a project, not programmatically) making this problem worse, that is good. But it still does not make WT:MILHIST any kind of good venue for settling this matter, when the problem is widespread, involving multiple projects, and is mostly not confined to military subjects to begin with. For the third time: when there's a problem with wikiprojects doing something topical that doesn't agree with encyclopedia-wide standards, the proper venue is WP:VPPOL. Despite having little time or patience for WP:DRAMA right now, I'm simply going to go open the VPPOL RfC myself if I get any more "ignore the real point so I can tone-police as form of debate-for-sport" responses. Just go have the proper discussion at the appropriate venue, that has enough uninvolved eyeballs to make a real decision, instead of arguing back-and-forth on a page which is clearly not going to result in an implementable consensus, or suggesting to take it to some one-topic star chamber that will either not result in a consensus or will result in one that people in other wikiprojects (like ROYALTY) will just ignore as inter-wikiproject conflict. See also: WP:Use common sense.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[[:File:MagrittePipe.jpg|thumb| This is not a pipe]] It seems to me that this is a metephisical argument. If there is a photographic image of the inscription of a monument in a church, is that a reliable source for the inscription, or does an antiquarian source from the 17th century have to be used if no more recent source about the inscription exists? If there is no known secondary source is this primary source of the wording on the monument not allowed? Answers to these questions have an influence on how images of medals etc are to be assessed. -- PBS ( talk) 17:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say the answer to that is more related to WP:DUE; if RS don't consider the inscription notable enough to discuss it in text, it probably isn't encyclopedic. JoelleJay ( talk) 20:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the monument inscription is a reasonable equivalent since it's a permanent fixture. A medal or badge or other apparel is transient. Besides, there's no validation that someone wearing something is actually entitled to it. If I have a picture taken while wearing a crown, I'm still not a queen. Schazjmd  (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A monument is precisely the same. There is no grantee that what is written on a monument is accurate (eg the original wording on the monument to the Great Fire of London), so what on does as with any other primary sources is to follow WP:PRIMARY. Now one can argue whether a monument that is accessible to the public has been "reputedly published", but in it seems that the consensus is that because it was written and placed in the public arena that it has (personally I think it would be better if that were not so, along with birth and dearh registrations before they were collected nationally). However back to an image of a person wearing a medal or badge. The first question that has to be asked is "how does one know who is in the image"? If for example it is in an portrait gallery or a museum (or a magazine which is reliably publish) and has been attributed as representing the person of interest then it is (according to the secondary source). As the medal or badge being warn this depends on context. If you [User:Schazjmd]] were shown wearing a crown while down the pubbar then it would probably not be enough to confirm that you were a queen, however if the picture showed you in a US Air Force master sergeant uniform, at a military parade while in the army, wearing a purple heart, then it is likely that could be considered authoritative. As always with primary sources it depends on context and content. If there is a picture of the Queen of England wearing a medal or badge representing an award, then as it is highly unlikely that she would wear such an award unless it had been given, that can be taken as authoritative. In the context of the UK for most awards one can always check the London Gazette], however for other European states, particularly those that no longer exist, it may be extremely difficult to find an alternative source. As always with primary sources rather that stating the fact the person had the award, state that a painting exists showing them wearing the award. -- PBS ( talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

But people do wear badges or jewellery that in a picture may not be clear. If an ward has been made there will be a record, so why use a picture. If an award has been awarded but not recorded by RS then wp:undue crops up. If RS do not care why should we? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what Slatersteven said. Additionally, the use of images as described above is predicated on editors personally identifying the award in question. Citations are used to verify attribution: any reader should be able to visit the source and confirm a) it is specifically mentioned there, and b) Wikipedia's description is accurate. Referencing an image of a person wearing a medal, where the source text description does not address the medal or where there is no accompanying text at all, fails verifiability. You can't draw your own conclusions from a written source; why should it be any different for an image? JoelleJay ( talk) 17:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I can not read Greek (or any other none Latin script), but Wikipedia editors allow non-English sources and rely on editors to translate those sources. If I question the accuracy of the translation by another editor, then I have recourse to ask other editors to verify the translation. I can not read the Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces by looking at an image of an US officer in a dress uniform at a formal dinner, but there are people who can, and like other primary sources (such as monuments) there ought not to be a simple blanket ban. Each image should be assessed on its merits. In the case of most modern states, there are other sources that can be accessed, but did Idi Amin's regime keep detailed records of all the awards he issued? Information available in catalogued archives for states in previous centuries, particularly those which were short lived may not exist. If however there is an image of a portrait of a notable person wearing the honour then the source should not be dismissed out of hand, just because it is an image of a portrait and not written in a secondary source or as an image of a Church mural monument. If the image of a mural monument includes an carving of the notable person wearing an award would that be acceptable as a reliable source, while an image of a portrait would not? -- PBS ( talk) 14:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No: there is no situation in which an image by itself is a reliable source. It is just a category error. -- JBL ( talk) 16:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What does the qualifier "by itself" mean? Also what does "just a category error" mean? -- PBS ( talk) 14:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion covers what "by itself" means: an image with no supporting text from a RS. I gave several examples above, including this. A portrait of someone wearing an honor is not a reliable source if the honor has not been identified in that picture by reliable secondary sources, under which circumstance the portrait is no longer needed as a reference because we can just use the secondary source instead. If the honor is mentioned as part of the portrait title it could be ok. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, JoelleJay. What I mean by "a category error" is that images are not sources of information in the same way that written text is, and extracting information from an image is not the same process as extracting information from text. To use a silly analogy, an image is like my sandwich from lunch: anyone who sees it can infer various (true) things by viewing it, but the sandwich is not usable as a source without someone writing down in text those things. If the someone doing the transfer of information from image to language is a Wikipedia editor, that's OR. -- JBL ( talk) 19:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As this noticeboard is concerned with the reliability of sources, its editors may have expertise relevant to the RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request_for_comments regarding the statement in the article Daily Mail that it is "widely criticised for its unreliability". -sche ( talk) 23:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC has been closed. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A new RfC along similar lines has been opened as Talk:Daily Mail#RfC:_sourcing_of_"widely_criticized_for_its_unreliability". -sche ( talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Czech Pirate Party article states in the lead that "The party's positions range from centre to centre-left and are " liberal" (in contrast to " conservative") within the context of politics of the Czech Republic, while it has both right-wing and left-wing voters." The source of this is a 2016 survey of using a self-selected convenience sample of readers of iDNES, a Czech newspaper [36] however the newspaper never states this in text, it is just extrapolated using WP:OR from the charts on the page showing the result of the survey, which can be interpreted in different ways as I pointed out on the article talk page.

1. Can surveys be used to generalize about the political ideology of a party?
2. If they can be used, should they be attributed in text, such as "A 2016 survey found, blah blah blah" along with an explanation of the survey's questions and methodology?
3. Are such surveys to be preferred to what reliable sources state directly about a party's ideology and supporters? ( t · c) buidhe 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would say no; in general, a poll or survey should never be used to directly cite anything but the specific results of that poll or survey, and even that should be done cautiously to avoid WP:OR implications. Interpreting what a poll means, including what it means with regards to a party's identity, requires a secondary source. They shouldn't even be used in a way that implies something about the party's membership - again, if it's obvious, there ought to be secondary sources stating it; interpreting a poll requires understanding its context, the questions that were asked, the timeframe it took place in, etc. And it definitely can't be used to indicate the party's positions (assuming that's what it's being used for here) which isn't even a valid inference even if WP:OR were allowed. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agree, polls need to be interpreted by a reliable secondary source for any conclusions. —DIYeditor ( talk) 18:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• It looks like WP:SYN, the reliability of the source is neither here nor there. Whether we'd use surveys for this kind of claim depends on whether the sources we cite, make the link. As long as we accurately reflect what the sources say, and the sources themselves are reliable, it's not our problem to fix. Guy ( help!) 09:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Here is an interesting website: Kill or cure? Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. The website isn't reliable, but like Wikipedia itself the gold is in the citations. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, heh, this looks like a variant of the Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project ( https://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/). Guy ( help!) 09:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing.

User:ReconditeRodent suggested that I raise an RFC on this noticeboard to gather greater consensus following my initial RFC on the talk page for Spencer Wells.

I wish to rely on the following articles from the Algemeiner Journal and The Jewish News Syndicate to attribute to Mr Wells following controversial tweets by Mr Wells which he has since deleted:

https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/07/03/university-of-texas-repudiates-ex-professor-who-called-for-israel-to-be-bombed-until-the-sand-turns-to-glass/

https://www.jns.org/opinion/ut-needs-to-define-and-combat-institutional-anti-jewish-sentiment/

Can you please clarify whether I can rely on either or both of these sources? Many thanks in advance. Joshgladwin ( talk) 10:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Just had a quick glance at JNS and I would say that anything covered there should raise issues of due weight without more mainstream coverage. Also none of their articles seem to have a byline (?), and I can't find the kind of info about who the editors or publisher is that I would expect from a reputable news source. So, not terribly impressed. -- JBL ( talk) 12:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Algemeiner is WP:NEWSORG so I think its reliable -- Shrike ( talk) 18:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I know nothing about the JNS, but Algemeiner is generally reliable but it's not the BBC. However, for allegations serious enough to ruin a distinguished researchers career, you need better sources. See WP:BLP. ImTheIP ( talk) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The reliability of these sources is probably a bit less than Jewish Telegraphic Agency which serves a similar market, but I don't think they're unreliable. Their coverage is often derivative in which case it may be better to cite the original source. I would not use their opinion pieces at all (which would eliminate the JNS piece) and would not use their reporting on a BLP or highly controversial issue unless it was confirmed by other reporting. However, they're definitely usable for some topics, such as reporting on what Jewish organizations say, news about Israeli businesses, or internal issues. ( t · c) buidhe 03:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Algemeiner is a long running WP:NEWSORG with a solid reputation and is generally reliable. JNS is less established, but does have a solid team, so I would think it is a reliable source. In addition to its own content, JNS also circulates opinion pieces (need attribution) as well as re-circulating pieces by other news organizations (these are marked on the byline, the reliability is according to the source and not JNS).-- Bob not snob ( talk) 07:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• The content supported by primary source i.e the tweets themselves so its not question of reliability Shrike ( talk) 11:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Shrike: What if the offending tweets have since been deleted? The JNS source contains a hyperlink to screenshots of the now deleted tweets. Can these be used? Joshgladwin ( talk) 23:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• One needs to be careful about some of these publications, Algemeiner was involved in a "deepfake" anti-Palestinian affair recently (they are not alone in this Israel National News, the Jerusalem Post, and the Times of Israel also published deepfake opinion pieces).

The source is this chart [37] which has it well into "most extreme left" - but I can't square that claim with what I see when I click "politics" on its website. [38]. Something's wrong. I've reverted as it makes no sense. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What do other RS say? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There's an article titled "Grown-Ass President Wants A Cookie For Wearing A Mask In Public." There was one yesterday with a lead graphic of Trump as a toddler rolling and flailing on the ground in a temper tantrum. Ad fontes uses titles and lead images as part of the rubric and weights them pretty heavily. —valereee ( talk) 14:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That just makes me doubt the RS status of Ad Fontes! I know some genuinely far-left, and that ain't it. -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad fontes is generally very good at assessing non-satire. Wonkette uses a ton of political satire, especially in titles and images, so probably isn't a good thing for ad fontes to be assessing, even. —valereee ( talk) 14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I brought this up on the noticeboard up last month, and it was also discussed in April. It seems ridiculous to treat Media Bias / Fact Check as an unreliable source but Ad Fontes as reliable, both are self-published sources with no editorial oversight. I can understand using Ad Fontes as a rough guide to the leaning of various news organisations, but it should not be used as an authority on source reliability. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Like I said below... things like that make an outlet partisan, not far-left or far-right. I don't think that Adfontes chart is measuring far-left or far-right in the sense we're talking about, which generally refers to holding Far-left politics (eg. extreme anti-capitalism; communism or anarchism) or Far-right politics (eg. neo-fascism, white nationalism, etc.) rather than being highly partisan. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. Ad Fontes is not a RS. It's a useful guide when assessing sources but is not in and of itself reliable. Guy ( help!) 14:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • When I searched RSN before posting here it looked as though most people consider it reliable. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I got the impression from the OANN and Ad Fontes discussion that Ad Fontes was not usable in article space as a direct source of the bias or reliability of a publication. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Either way I wouldn't consider it usable for this in particular - Far-left politics has a very different meaning than "most extreme left" in the context they're using it; I read it as meaning stridently left, or partisan left, whereas far-left means "supports radical policies." AFAIK Wonkette is not supporting the overthrow of capitalism or taking any particularly far-left positions within the spectrum of American politics (in fact, they supported Biden, I think?) The chart is simply measuring whether outlets are highly partisan in the US political sense, not the nature of their politics. Consider where CounterPunch and The Intercept (which clearly support more radical policies than Wonkette) land on that chart. Similarly, on the right side, there are several outlets that are plainly more right-wing in their politics than Fox News which nonetheless are placed to the left of it, since Fox is very stridently partisan. Another way of looking at it is that from AdFontes' perspective sources with a strong ideology are actually going to be less partisan because a genuine commitment to an ideology will make eg. Reason or the Washington Examiner more willing to go against American party lines occasionally, whereas Fox or Wonkette will gleefully disregard everything to push a particular political end. Part of the issue that makes it hard to see this is that far-left isn't as well-defined as far-right - but consider eg. RedState, which occupies a position somewhat similar to Wonkette both on that chart and in reality. It's a garbage source on the chart, obviously, but is it far-right? Obviously not. Anyway, beyond that, this shows why it's a bad idea to use charts as sources in general, since interpreting them often requires WP:OR. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No. To say, in the article body, that " Ad Fontes Media considers Wonkette left-wing" would probably be alright if other sources covered (and hence attached weight to) Ad Fontes' view of Wonkette. To cite them as a source for a claim in wikivoice that "Wonkette is far left" is not, for reasons Aquillon lays out (namely that it involves OR [mis?]interpreting their image, and it's also unclear that they are reliable). -sche ( talk) 18:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Grandwizardman67 has reverted me with an edit summary " cited my source. And you really don't even need a source to know how left-wing it is. Almost every article mocks trump or right-wing news media and the comments section is filled with comments mocking "orange snowflakes"" Doug Weller talk 08:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have a misunderstanding of what left and right mean (interpreting them solely in the context of "how severely are they on one side of the American partisan political divide" rather than actual ideological positions.) This is one of the reasons we need sources using "far left" or "far right" unambiguously to use those terms in the article text, since it's very easy for editors to mistakenly think that they are a valid paraphrase in situations where they're not. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Wonkette is definitely a partisan left-wing site, but nothing about it is even remotely near the far-left. " Far-left" is generally regarded as encompassing things like communism, Trotskyism and left-anarchism, not energetic mainstream leftism. -- The Anome ( talk) 09:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Anome, I agree with your characterisation of what constitutes far left but I think it's probably irrelevant here: the left-right axis on Ad Fontes is degree of bias, not position on the left/right spectrum. Wonkette may well be considered extremely partisan, but that does not make it far-left. In the same way, Fox is hyper-partisan, but not far-right, as we would normally understand the term.

So it's a misunderstanding of a source that is in any case not usable for content, and we don't even need to get into the merits of the claim itself. Guy ( help!) 09:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@ JzG: Exactly. Hyper-partisan ≠ extreme. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to depreciate this source and add a warn filter, several editors noted promotion of conspiracy theories and false or misleading information as being a significant issue. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:20, 16 July 2020 (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.

---

Should Zero Hedge be deprecated as a source, with an edit filter set to warn editors who attempt to use it as a reference? —  Newslinger  talk 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Zero Hedge)

• Yes. Zero Hedge is well-known for disseminating conspiracy theories, and has a reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. —  Newslinger  talk 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes any source should be deprecated if it deliberately disseminates conspiracy theories, which ZH certainly does. b uidh e 03:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly and deliberately publishes conspiracy theories and blatant lies, so it should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - it promotes conspiracy theories and nonsense. It cannot be trusted to be a Wikipedia source - David Gerard ( talk) 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes as per previous comments. It's original content is often completely untrue. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 08:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously - but I thought it already was? This should be deprecated and systematically removed. Unlike the Daily Mail, ZeroHedge was always junk. Guy ( help!) 10:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning yes, though the option to just add it to WP:RSP could be viable (see below; there are only about 20 citations to it, and they don't seem to be problematic ones).  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, it's already there. Guy ( help!) 12:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, so what's the issue? Are people regularly citing it for nonsense? I don't really have an issue blacklisting it, as long as we selectively permit certain specific URLs for WP:ABOUTSELF citations as needed.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, I think Newslinger wants to include it in a filter with a warn template, presumably Filter 869 ( log) Guy ( help!) 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the standard practice and that's what I'm proposing here, unless there is consensus for some other measure. I would not oppose blacklisting, since there is precedent in globalresearch.ca ( RSP entry) and InfoWars ( RSP entry). —  Newslinger  talk 12:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Works for me, then.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes distorts kernels of truth, misrepresents, possible ties to dark money propaganda. -- Green C 13:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't understand the argument that the problem has to get out of hand before addressing it. -- Calton | Talk 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, warn filter is helpful. Neutrality ^talk 23:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — might as well get out in front of the problem while it's still only sparsely used. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes — nipped in the bud beats rampant use, which the warning may prevent. Lindenfall ( talk) 17:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Any source that deliberately fabricates information like they do needs to be deprecated ASAP. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Do not deprecate — one investing book [39] has called Zero Hedge "a favorite daily read among Wall Street's literati... an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants about the failings of U.S. political and economic institutions ad policies." Another [40] called it "Perhaps the most famous blog on markets in general is Zero Hedge, a site with a cult following." As I write in more detail below, the site has written some awful stuff, but it's also clearly a notable and popular source of opinion. Based on the discussions about the site and published opinion, it clearly falls under the category "generally unreliable" WP:GUNREL. Interestingly, as noted by reliable sources, Zero Hedge frequently posts unpopular opinions. One book [41] explains that the blog "uses anonymity as 'a shield from the tyranny of the majority,'" concluding "whenever you need a little raw reality, swing by Zero Hedge." Unpopular opinions are not a basis for deprecation, but is it possible that this may influence comments here? How are editors deciding between whether a source should be considered "generally unreliable" or "deprecated?" I agree with Blueboar that these designations, like much of internet-based communication, remove nuance and result in poor policy decisions. Prohibitions within Wikipedia against citing famous and notable voices outside of it, even if those voices are often unreliable, does not help us accurately reflect public discourse. - Darouet ( talk) 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• You confuse popularity with reliability. An outlet can be "notable," "widely read," even "famous," yet also completely unreliable. This is the case with, for example, Weekly World News, The Drudge Report, and Zero Hedge. Also, a book saying that a blog publishes "an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants" does not seem exactly like a mark in favor of the blog. Neutrality ^talk 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• That's not a confusion found in my comment, where I have addressed both popularity and reliability, and advocated that Zero Hedge be treated as "generally unreliable," i.e. WP:GUNREL. You're also selectively quoting from the source I cited. - Darouet ( talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes — Surprised to see this here. There are no characteristics of a reliable source. O3000 ( talk) 01:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No - there is no need such whimsical behaviour as it is already listed in the yucky WP:RSN and the few cites seem to be for articles of it, it’s editors, and categories for conspiracy theories, etcetera. In that context, it seems a good RS and not readily replaceable. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 04:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to deprecate, a purveyor of literal fake news. ValarianB ( talk) 13:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes deprecate, obviously not anything close to reliable. -- Calthinus ( talk) 11:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• No I still oppose this "deprecation" system. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Zero Hedge)

• There have been three previous discussions of Zero Hedge on this noticeboard:
  1. ZeroHedge Blog post by "Tyler Durden (2015)
  2. Zero Hedge (2018)
  3. rate "Zero Hedge" (2019)

Zero Hedge is currently used in 20 articles    . —  Newslinger  talk 01:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

20 citations seems a bit low for a full blown depreciation RfC, though I had thought about proposing this myself. Have zerohedge citations been previously removed? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

COIBot reports that there were 1,149 link additions as of December 2017, although this includes non-English Wikipedias. With an Alexa rank of 1,627, Zero Hedge is a prominent website. —  Newslinger  talk 02:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Hemiauchenia. ZH has some provocative stories and I suspect there is a lot of good information there but there is also a lot of conspiracy stuff. Regardless, I feel like we shouldn't deprecate unless there is a real problem with the source being used badly. It doesn't appear that is the case here. Perhaps just add them to RSP as not reliable and leave it at that. Springee ( talk) 02:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ZH has some provocative stories... Yes, all the falsehoods and conspiracy theories they push are very provocative, I'm sure. Not a standard for a reliable source.
  • ...and I suspect there is a lot of good information there. Wikipedia has standards higher than "suspect". You know, the whole "reliability" thing. -- Calton | Talk 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure why you would bother replying to that. Its like you think I'm claiming it passes Wikipedia's RS when I'm clearly saying it doesn't. I'm sorry that wasn't clear for you. Springee ( talk) 23:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Why you think distorting my statement helps your case I don't know. Maybe, instead, you should pay attention to my noting how bringing up irrelevancies like how they have "provocative stories" and content-free opinions like "I suspect [emphasis added] there is a lot of good information there" is an obvious effort to undermine the obvious conclusion that Zero Hedge is garbage. -- Calton | Talk 01:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
        • That is an illogical conclusion. You certainly went on a which hunt to find more than I put in there. I very clearly stated that ZH is not a RS. It absolutely does not pass WP:RS standards. Should have been end of the discussion. But you wanted to make an issue with something I said for who knows what reason. OK, you might feel that 100% of their stories are garbage. I've found at least some of their stories promoted by some very smart people in the finance world. Not smart people trying to get others to buy or sell but trying to get others to understand things the market or companies are doing. That doesn't mean they are reliable by Wikipedia standards or should ever be used as a RS even if they can be thought provoking/enlightening from time to time. I'm sorry my opinion was so problematic that you felt it was important to call out. Please keep our previous civility discussions/warnings in mind when doing so in the future. Springee ( talk) 01:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's a conspiracy blog. There is non-nonsense content, but the good stuff is not original and the original stuff is very bad indeed. Shouldn't be used as a source for anything, including statements about itself - David Gerard ( talk) 07:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• I hate the entire concept of deprecation... context matters. So rather than a simple !vote, I would say it is Reliable when used as a primary source, but Not reliable when used as a secondary source. Blueboar ( talk) 11:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What's your evidence that it can even be trusted as a primary source? - David Gerard ( talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • EVERY source is reliable when used as a primary source... the problem isn’t reliability, it’s that there are very limited situations in which it is appropriate to use primary sources. The problem with deprecation is that it ignores the few rare instances when it IS appropriate. Blueboar ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
      • We literally know that dailymail.co.uk can't be trusted for the contents of the Daily Mail, for example - David Gerard ( talk) 23:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

      Blueboar, well, up to a point. I think I'd struggle to come up with a definition of reliable that encompasses whale.to. Guy ( help!) 14:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Blueboar, in a sane world deprecation would not be needed: people would just not use crap sources. Seems we don't live in that world. There are still people trying to cite WorldNetDaily, and the essence of fake news sites is in any case to hide their fakeness so there are good faith errors as well as editors who simply don't understand what constitutes a reliable source. Guy ( help!) 11:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The question is: are there situations when it is appropriate to cite such sources? I say yes. They are very very limited, but they exist. Hence my opposition to deprecation as a concept. Blueboar ( talk) 12:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, actually that's a point in favour of deprecation (as opposed to blacklisting). Deprecation says that the source should be avoided unless there is clear consensus to include for some specific reason. That seems entirely consistent with your point here. Of course, people misinterpret it, and that's a valid criticism, but we should fix that by being really clear what we mean by deprecation.

It's my view that we should include an optional parameter in the root citation template for something like "consensus=", to record consensus to include otherwise unreliable sources. That would include the handful of self-published books that are agreed to be RS, as well as deprecated or generally unreliable websites. Guy ( help!) 14:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen deprecation in action. It has become a defacto blacklist. The concept is flawed. Blueboar ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this an argument about the reliability and usefulness of a purported information source, or some sort of misplaced free-speech argument? -- Calton | Talk 23:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already said that I think it can be reliable when used as a primary source, but not as a secondary source. Thus, it should not be deprecated. Blueboar ( talk) 00:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation has been broadly recognized since WP:RSNRFC. For the few cases that a citation of Zero Hedge would be useful as a primary source, an editor can establish consensus to include the citation on the talk page of the article, and then add the citation to the article by clicking the "Publish changes" button after the warning message is displayed. Regardless of whether Zero Hedge is deprecated, it is highly unlikely for there to be consensus for citing Zero Hedge (outside of the Zero Hedge article), since the due weight policy assigns minimal weight to unreliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk 03:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already said that I think it can be reliable when used as a primary source Since that statement applies, in general, to literally every single source of any quality whatsoever on Wikipedia, and you haven't cited any examples, counterfactuals, or possibilities regarding THIS source, I repeat: is this an argument about the reliability and usefulness of a -- this particular, the one being discussed -- purported information source, or some sort of misplaced free-speech argument? -- Calton | Talk 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment — Zero Hedge has posted some ridiculous and libelous material, for instance claiming that some Chinese scientists had created the COVID-19 pandemic ( Reuters source). Furthermore, while twitter may have forgiven Zero Hedge for that monstrosity [42], I haven't. Despite that, the blog is highly notable. I don't think it's a reliable source of news, but it is an important source of opinion. For that reason, I don't think it should be deprecated, a highly specific response that has targeted an increasing number of news and/or commentary sites since the deprecation of the Daily Mail, and the implementation of the perennial sources list. As I've pointed out earlier, there are various sources that have described Zero Hedge as an important source:
  • Social Media Strategies for Investing: How Twitter and Crowdsourcing Tools Can Make You a Smarter Investor, Brian D. Egger, "F+W Media, Inc.", Nov 1, 2014:

"Many individual investors might also be unfamiliar with Zero Hedge, the blog associated with Mr. Ivandjiiski. Zero Hedge has emerged as a favorite daily read among Wall Street's literati. According to Quantcast, a digitical audience-measurement and advertising company, Zero Hedge recently attracted about 3.4 million monthly unique visitors. The website has built up an impressive amount of monthly traffic for a publication with the mystique of an underground operation. More mainstream blogging websites, such as TheStreet and Seeking Alpha, each attract 8–9 million monthly unique visitors, according to their advertising web pages. Zero Hedge and its principle contributor with the mysterious pseudonym are not exactly newcomers to the world of financial blogging. In 2009, a New York Magazine article, entitled "The Dow Zero Insurgency", shed light on Zero Hedge's little-known principal in a feature article on the burgeoning world of financial blooding... Zero Hedge's coverage of [a Goldman Sachs] story became emblematic of its unique brand of investigative journalism — one laced with a deeply cynical distrust of Wall Street... Zero Hedge is an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants about the failings of U.S. political and economic institutions ad policies... Its writers dart back and forth between conventional news coverage and opinion-laden editorials. Readers value the blog's frequent, topical updates and strong point of view. Followers of Zero Hedge also praise the author's cerebral brand of cynicism and determination to challenge mainstream views about business, finance, and politics... Many financial advisors and stock investors have bookmarked it (and others like it) and scan it for interesting headlines several times a day... etc."

• • Dark Pools and High Frequency Trading For Dummies, Jay Vaananen, John Wiley & Sons, Feb 23, 2015:

"Perhaps the most famous blog on markets in general is Zero Hedge, a site with a cult following. Zero Hedge dwarfs all other financial market blogs. Started in 2009, the blog is written in an activist style and is highly critical of markets. It has managed to remain shrouded in mystery. It's still not entirely clear who started it and it's believed to be edited by several people..."

• • The Neatest Little Guide to Stock Market Investing: Fifth Edition, Jason Kelly, Penguin, Dec 24, 2012:

This site's unsentimental worldview is right in its header: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." Its anonymous writers post articles under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"... about risks and shady developments in financial markets, news that impacts economies, and politics. It also runs guest posts by named contributors. Zero Hedge says its mission is "to widen the scope of financial, economic, and political information available to the professional investing public" and "to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become." It uses anonymity as "a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Whenever you need a little raw reality, swing by Zero Hedge."

I understand that Zero Hedge's reputation has suffered in recent years, but that's not sufficient to prohibit the source from being used, particularly as a reliable source for its own opinion. I think we've clearly established that opinion is notable. - Darouet ( talk) 22:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If their opinions are notable, then why not use non-primary coverage of those opinions instead of Zero Hedge itself? That's what's done with InfoWars and other conspiracy theory sites when their opinion is notable. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Ian.thomson: we certainly can do that. The recommendations of WP:GUNREL apply perfectly: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. It has not been demonstrated why the further step of deprecation is necessary. - Darouet ( talk) 00:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Darouet: You've kinda missed my point re comparison with InfoWars: that source is depreciated and whenever it would almost appear necessary to cite it we cite a secondary source instead. Depreciation is different from blacklisting, which is when the site is straight up blocked. The sources you've cited to show that sometimes it has noteworthy opinions also demonstrate that it is very likely to be cited. As others have pointed out and you acknowledge, it frequently hosts blatantly false conspiracy theories. While we shouldn't play whack-a-mole with sources favored by conspiracy theorists, it is simple enough to take out the ones that have gotten mainstream attention. The need for depreciation hasn't reached anything of an emergency level but I don't see why it needs to become an emergency before we do something about it. Ian.thomson ( talk) 09:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Ian.thomson: thanks for your comment. I've never seen any favorable commentary by reliable sources describing InfoWars. By contrast, as I've shown above, there is agreement among reliable sources that Zero Hedge is not simply a notable, but also a valuable source of commentary. For that reason InfoWars and Zero Hedge are very different sources and should be treated differently. The comparison with InfoWars supports my statement that editors are not treating sources with the nuance. - Darouet ( talk) 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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

The archiving of this page is not working because of links on the spam blacklist. [43] Can Lowercase sigmabot III get an exception to the blacklist? ( t · c) buidhe 06:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

​I don't think there is any way to bypass the spam blacklist without disabling the blacklisted link itself. The easiest way to do this is to wrap the link in <nowiki> tags. It can be difficult to pinpoint the affected link, so I use OneClickArchiver to manually archive discussions that should have already been archived (ones that have no comments in the last 5 days) one by one until I am stopped by the blacklist. I then disable the link with <nowiki> and let the archive bot handle the remaining discussions on its next run. —  Newslinger  talk 10:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. There were two blacklisted links in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301 § Communities Digital News. I've disabled them in Special:Diff/968118839. This time, I archived all discussions that had no comments in the last 5 days, rather than leaving the rest for the archive bot, since the large size of the page (almost 1.2 million characters at its peak) noticeably lengthened the time it took to submit an edit. —  Newslinger  talk 10:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The citing of Twitter posts has become widespread with the ubiquity of the platform. However, social media are in essence self-publishing platforms, thus fail WP:PRIMARY. Simply looking at reference sections reveals that editors use these as they would use reliable secondary sources while forgetting their true nature; that's without mentioning the clutter it sometimes creates. Notable comments made on Twitter usually have an abundance of secondary sources (like all other happenings), so can be validly cited. Yet, there's now a template that apparently institutionalises citation of tweets. Let's discuss whether this practice should continue. --  Ohc  ^¡digame! 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Context matters. A twitter post by a gobshit should not be used, but SPS allows for use of expert opinion. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, weeeelllll, yes and no. I absolutely support exclusion of random opinions by random bloviators, however well-known ( WP:GOBSHITE should absolutely be a thing) but I actually don't think Twitter should be used for anything at all if we can avoid it. We are supposed to be based on secondary sources, and virtually nothing posted on Twitter counts as a secondary source. I know this is tilting at windmills by now but there are vast areas of Wikipedia that are infested with blow by blow accounts of breaking news about insignificant crap drawn from the Twitter feeds of media personalities that are probably operated by their bloody PR anyway. Guy ( help!) 14:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it should not be a goto certainly. Twitter posts lack context often. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say to allow it in principle but avoid it wherever possible. For example, John C. Baez has a Twitter account, and mathematics or physics material that he posts there is technically permissible by WP:SPS. But even when there aren't BLP concerns or anything like that, the format is awkward, and if the only source for something is a tweet, then including it is probably giving it undue weight. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there are very many places where we can use Twitter posts. Yes, in theory it could sometimes pass WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, but in practice if it is WP:DUE it is likely to have sources elsewhere. Worse, many of the things people most want to cite to Twitter are either unduly self-serving or WP:EXCEPTIONAL. And it is very easy for people to forget the other strict requirements about WP:SPS (ie. no contentious claims about third parties, fullstop.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the warning about using it as a source higher up in the template's documentation page. That won't stop everyone, but it's better than having the warning below the ones about editing and discussing the template itself (neither of which are done often by most editors). Glades12 ( talk) 14:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for moving that Glades12. I know I'm a bit late to this but I should let you know that I am seeing hundreds of tweets used in articles about the covid pandemic as well as political endorsements in the US elections. My worries are that they are a WP:PRIMARY source and that there is zero oversight or fact checking involved. While this might not change any of the posts you've already made I thought it worth mentioning. MarnetteD| Talk 18:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. But I'm afraid that nothing short of full deprecation will stop this increasingly dubious practice which is beginning to undermine one of our fundamental tenets. --  Ohc  ^¡digame! 21:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is fine to use a verified twitter for simple about self stuff. Nothing controversial, but there are plenty of situations where it is useful. PackMecEng ( talk) 04:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP:SELFPUBLISH is no longer policy? If so than Ohconfucius is correct about the undermining of the fundamentals. BTW all the tweets I'm seeing are stand alone with no followup verification. MarnetteD| Talk 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@ MarnetteD: The exact section you linked to allows citing of self-published media (including that on social networks) written by subject-matter experts. In a nearby section, #Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves, the page also allows use of such content as sources on the authors themselves, in certain cases. So no, PackMecEng never implied that SELFPUB doesn't apply. Glades12 ( talk) 09:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The practice that I think violates the fundamental tenet and that I object to is citation of Twitter willy-nilly. There is the increasing tendency of editors to cite Twitter as a first port of call just as they would cite secondary sources because you follow someone on Twitter and found it interesting and relevant to an article, or just because the tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania uses it profusely. Of course, it isn't helped by the fact that many respected journos and media outlets also use Twitter abundantly. But the problem is that it isn't being used sparingly and as a last resort here on WP. In any event, the vast majority of the time, proper media searches would allow you to find an article that cites the person making the relevant and notable comment, without resorting to citing Twitter, and such an article can then be cited in compliance with our policies. Use of the {{ cite tweet}} template doesn't solve the problem, it just institutionalises this sub-optimal practice. While I go around tagging all such citations {{ Primary source inline}}, I feel like I'm battling a torrent and I hope that the communty calls time on the practice. --  Ohc  ^¡digame! 09:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but my point is that Twitter is not always an unacceptable source for everything. Glades12 ( talk) 14:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• It is policy, but as it says, exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL places additional restrictions on what can be used that way. That's what PackMecEng meant by "nothing controversial", I think. If a published subject matter expert has a thread about some uncontroversial bit of history in their area of expertise or whatever, we could in theory cite it (although WP:DUE is often a problem when the only source is Twitter), but if it's something shocking or exceptional we would usually want a better source, especially if there's a risk that the source may have a conflict of interest. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yup that is what I mean. I would only use a self published source for simple things that might not have secondary coverage but are not controversial most of the time. Something like where they were born or a birthday. Past things like that it gets into undue territory. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree that it is ok for uncontroversial self sourced info like date of birth, and place of birth imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that people lie about their birthday all the time. As to the earlier mention that WP:SELFPUBLISH has some provision for a primary source being used that is for material where the writer's bone fides can be checked. As is all too apparent anyone can have a twitter account and they can type any material factual or drivel that they want. Furthermore WP:BLPSELFPUB stresses Verifiability because "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Twitter does not meet any of that criteria so it should not used for info anymore than facebook or linkdn should. Furthermore claims are made every day that "my twitter account has been hacked" which makes its use even more dubious. Relying on social media like that takes us right back to why Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident brought about the need for reliable sourcing in the first place. Back then there was less than one million articles and virtually all of those were on an active editors watchlist. Now there are over 6 million and, based on my experience, there are a huge number that are on their lonesome and edits to those do not get checked. Now if someone wants to start a wikiproject where the members fact check every use of twitter as a reference then that could be a place to start a discussion. MarnetteD| Talk 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Eh the examples you provide are rarely likely to happen for uncontroversial things like birthdays or where they are born. Again this is not to say using a verified Twitter account should be desirable or the first stop. Always use secondary RS first, but sometimes is special situations it is acceptable. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Eh did you miss my first sentence - "Perhaps you are unaware that people lie about their birthday all the time" and both of those items are controversial if they are wrong. MarnetteD| Talk 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nope, didn't miss a thing. That is why the first thing I did was reply to that claim and how it really does not apply to anything. Perhaps you missed it? Yes if they are wrong they are controversial, and if you know they are wrong they can be changed. But if a subject says my birthday is X there is no reason not to use that unless you have a secondary source that contradicts it. In which case, as I said, you would just use that. If your only argument is well yeah but they could lie about it, well that is a weak argument that holds no weight. PackMecEng ( talk) 00:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• @ PackMecEng: We have had a number of examples of biography subjects lying about their age and that being used as a "source" for changing their birthdate. That wouldn't be a problem if there was a reliable source that contradicted it, but quite often the only other sources for them are things like IMDB (which, of course, can be user-generated). We had a fairly recent one (which, annoyingly, I now can't remember the exact article) which was an actress who appeared to have a problem with turning 40 so changed her birthdate via social media so much that she would have been around 11 when she made her film debut (in which you can clearly see she was a lot older than 11). But what do you do at that point? It's clearly WP:SYNTH to say "well, she's clearly a lot older than 11 in that film" so we end up just removing the DOB completely. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• @ Black Kite: It's hard to say really. That sounds like an argument against WP:ABOUTSELF in general. I cannot say we cannot use it because sometimes they lie about things. If there is any indication that is the case it should be removed like your example. Otherwise I think WP:Twitter-EL is fairly accurate. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Verified Twitter pages (I.E. blue checkmark) should be treated the same as any other primary source when cited for specific information. But as with any other primary source, reliable secondary sources are generally preferable. I concur with Slatersteven that context is key. Dark knight 2149 01:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• OK to use under limited circumstance: As stated in above and other comment, "context is key". Twitter should only be used if it's a tweet by an individual, organization, network, company (in short, a specific entity) and the tweet is (1) from the official account of the entity, and (2) only to verify content attributed to the entity. The web became public domain 27 years ago and the communications field has changed rapidly since then. We shouldn't stick our heads in the sand and ignore how Twitter is being used in lieu of print, online, and broadcast media. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned previously Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass twitter hacking note. MarnetteD| Talk 21:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Twitter is not a source or a publisher. It's a platform, a type of medium. The tweet is the source and the person tweeting is the publisher. Can tweets be used as sources? Depends on a lot of things, as spelled out at WP:TWITTER. Asking if Twitter can be used as a source is like asking if radio can be used as a source. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 23:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Americanstarbuzz [44]] is being used as a source [45] for Missy Gold now being a psychologist in California. The relevant edit [46] can be found here and @ Sundayclose: is the editor.

Is Americanstarbuzz a reliable source?

The oldest post to this site is about a year old.

Nowhere on the website is any info given about the site or its authors.

It's a celebrity info/gossip website.

I would like to hear opinions on it. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like another obscure low quality clickbait WP:SPS content farm focused on the personal statistics of public figures, like starsunfolded.com above, I'd remove it on sight. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and undone the whole revision, as it appears to be entirely based on WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS, which are not acceptable for BLP articles. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)