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.

I noticed https://wikiblog.org/ given as a source for our article on Sean Michael Kyer. I'm curious if the site itself would be considered reliable or if it would be considered ineligible since the site itself appears to cite no sources for its claims and as a wiki could be open to interpretation. The specific use in this case is as citation four in the following sentence:

"Sean Michael Kyer was born on July 31, 2001 in Vancouver, British Columbia,[3] where he began an minor acting career as an infant.[4]"

Frankly I'm of the mind that our article itself really doesn't demonstrate notability as it were (i'd redirect the article to the odd squad page) but setting aside my personal opinion here I am at the moment more interested in the source. TomStar81 ( Talk) 00:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This has got to be the least legitimate-looking source I've seen in a while. Every article seems to be written by the same person, and the articles don't cite any sources at all (Did they talk to the subjects? Did they completely make all this stuff up? Who knows). I'd be inclined to believe that it is just based off scraping Wikipedia, but there seems to be additional information not featured in WP articles -- for example, their post on Aleister Black (picked at random from posts made today) has a very familiar-looking table of contents and infobox, but mentions that he went to a "Davenport West High School" which appears nowhere in his en.wp article. It seems unlikely to me that this random person has been in contact with the wrestler. The whole rest of the site is a mess, as well -- no more information about this mysterious author, no "about" page, no parent organization, nothing. This stuff might as well be written on a bathroom wall, as far as I'm concerned. jp× g 04:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• It looks like the usual content farm garbage. ( t · c) buidhe 04:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@ SomeBodyAnyBody05: Against my better judgement, but because I know that I like to be kept in the loop on developments that concern me and my areas of interest, I'm drawing your attention to this post. If you have anything to add, or if you wish to defend your choice of sources, feel free to do so, otherwise it may be best to consider this a poor source and refrain from using it moving forward. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User:TomStar81, So you're involving me in a discussion that's not really about me but about a petty source I used, What is your reasoning behind posting this? To make a WP:POINT about my poor choice of selecting sources when on his offical website he confirms he was doing minor acting since he was 2 years old, Source P.S he writes that section in the third person. And if that's not enough there is literally many other internet sources mentioning him starting at an infant age. Let's end this dicussion please. And originally I chose that source becasue it looked pretty legitmate and you can usually trust .org sites more than .com ones not to say they are 100 percent reliable and factual. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 13:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Not an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The website seankyer is a primary source, which is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Those are usually the worst sources you can get for living people because they are always favorable to the subject matter. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

But where do you see an quote on quote "favorable subject matter"? And it's not really a blog but more of memoir in the simplest terms. And isn't that how most people get there word on word sources from interviews with the subject answering the question the same way they would express in a online auto-bio like this one? And if you still want to fight that source, I have found another source from an interview with the actor where he tells the interviewer when he began an acting career Source 2. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It would still have to be in a RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a blog, its about page list one mentally handicapped girl who writes to make herself feel better. She's not a journalist, she not an expert, she is someone whose website isn't qualified in our eyes to be cited as a source. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree its not an RS, but I suggest a close reading of wp:blp might not go amiss. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you want to talk about the interviewer themselves but you still can't dispute the fact that it is a legitamate interview and shouldn't be mixed in with the other content farm garbage. It wouldn't be reliable source when quoting about the person who made website which is what we're not doing here, we're talking about the actor himself. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Slatersteven: Sound advice, but I'm not sure its going to help. I've pissed off this editor twice already by coming in hot, and now it appears they are drawing a line in the sand against further incursion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 12 subsection Aleshia Allen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Daniel Bolden as examples). A look on the talk page shows COI notices and some of the past contributions could be considered iffy or outright bad faith replies. This whole thing increasingly looks to pivot toward an OWN battle over poorly written biographies with bad sources on articles that quite frankly are either here WP:TOOSOON or shouldn't be here at all, IMO. TomStar81 ( Talk) 14:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Then take it to wp:ani, not here. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User:TomStar81, You were wrong to bring a different dicussion in a reliable source discussion. Don't get me wrong I was a little upset you deleted the page in the first place but I know when not to hold grudges against editors. That editor has nothing to do with the other dicussions, so you have to stop the canvassing to them. And I read RS, I've read it a million times but there comes a time when you must know to be WP:CALM. Bringing this to ANI is not necessary. And Keep in mind your partly the initiator of this editing quarrel by starting a deletion discussion on a notable actor that I mentioned on deletion review about a completly different actress and the current discussion you just started where you ping "me" into the discussion to talk about a petty source I used. You have to take WP:ADMINACCT. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 14:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Then you would know that it does not support the claim that just because the subject of an interview says something that means it passes RS. We judge RS based upon their reputation, not who they write about or interview. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right about that but they're still WP:Questionable sources and we can't just immediately throw it out just from the interviewr being a blogger. And when does it come a time when we look at the person's offical website themselves and the interview and can determine if the statement on the article belongs or not, Because editors sometimes use autobiographies when quoting a subject personal life or trivial info about the person. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 15:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Well I would say you can, as we have no way of knowing how the interview was edited. That is why it says "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves". I really think you need to stop this and find RS compliant sourcing. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

But again since you since you said should be used a "sources for material on themselves" what about the offical website made by the subject at seankyer.com where he mentions on the acting section about starting an acting career at two as well? The source is above at source 1, That's my RS complaint sourcing. And this discussion within itself is just extraneous because the admin Tomstar81 starts a dicussion about a different source I used for one sentence in the article which turns into a quarrel about a unrelated topic that we were talking over. I'll just remove the sentence to end this fracas. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ ( talk) 17:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Might fall foul of "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Slatersteven ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Plus Source says it is based on IMDb, which anyone can contribute to, so definetly not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Plus here we do not discuss editors, we examine the quality of sources. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• thepostmillennial.com   

I know there was an RfC on this 3 months ago, though I'd like to add some recent coverage of The Great Reset ( [1] [2] [3] [4]). I recently started a draft for an article on the subject and found the "Top Stories" tab of Google littered with sources supporting conspiracy theories related to the proposal ( consistently, too), most of which were from it and RT. I suggest we be bold and challenge this conspiracy-mongering source. I'm not taking their narrative as fact. Start checking out the option of deprecation again and use reliable sources unlike The Post Millennial. -- Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{( P/ R)} 02:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

While I agree TPM is garbage, it's unclear whether anyone is trying to use it as if it's factual. If not, it may be ok to leave it rated generally unreliable for now. (I would vote to deprecate in a RfC). ( t · c) buidhe 04:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The reliable source board is not for righting great wrongs. Wikipedia does not care what google is doing. We are not owned or employed by them. I don't know much about The Post Millenial, but if you don't like them don't use them. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice work on the page! Agree that deprecating TPM is unwarranted. Today I removed ~10 cases where it was used for facts and left ~10 where it is used for relevant attributed opinion. I don't think there's significant need to discuss this source for deprecation. Jlevi ( talk) 13:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I need an assessment of how reliable this author and her book is.

What I found about the author is only from her website, which gives following bio [5]:

Sister Emmanuel tells that after receiving her first calling to the Beatitudes Community in 1976, she received another calling – to serve Our Lady in Medjugorje. Sent by her community, she initiated the first branch of the community in Medjugorje in 1989. During the Balkan war in the 90s, Sister Emmanuel became known for her regular faxes about the situation in Herzegovina, always related to the mission of Our Lady. She has had an enormous impact on France, stimulating an extensive response to Medjugorje among French pilgrims, but her apostolate has broadened as her books have been translated into 22 languages and she has traveled widely to make Medjugorje known, particularly in the United States. Today, “Les Enfants de Medjugorje” and “Children of Medjugorje, Inc.” allow her to be connected everyday to thousands of people around the world, who are motivated by and spreading, the messages of Our Lady in their own humble way. Sister says that her greatest joy is to be part of a family formed by Our Lady, and being Her extended heart and hands for her children, especially those who do not yet know the love of God.

Thus, we learn she founded and heads the organisation called "Children of Medjugorje", dedicated to "spreading the ( Our Lady of Medjugorje's) messages out" (paraphrasing).

Maillard wrote several books. However, I want the assessment on the reliability of this particular book, which was translated into English under the title "Medjugorje, the 90's - The Triumph of the Heart". Dražen Kutleša writes in his Serbo-Croatian language book titled "Ogledalo pravde" about her book: "Her book, Medjugorje gli anni '90, is sold in Italy with an attached tissue so the reader may wipe tears" (Serbo-Croatian: "Njezina knjiga Medjugorje gli anni ‘90, 1998, u Italiji se prodaje s priloženim rupčićem da čitatelj može brisati suze.", p. 283).

That put aside, I cannot find her book being used as a reference in any scientific paper [6]. Moreover, I cannot find any of her books being used as a reference anywhere [7].

The same author had a list of statements affirmative towards the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje, attributed to Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, which Cardinal Ratzinger assessed as "mere fabrications" (Ich kann dazu nur sagen, dass die dem Heiligen Vater und mir zugeschriebenenen Äusserungen über Medjugorje frei erfunden sind) (Ogledalo pravde, p. 283; Nacional (weekly) [8]).

-- Governor Sheng ( talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: previous discussion of this source at Talk:Our Lady of Medjugorje, though just between two editors Vahurzpu ( talk) 01:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well its all very SPSy for a start. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• How reliable would we expect a book about a celebrity by a superfan to be? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, that's why I asked for your oppinion. At first glance, I'd say it's unreliable. -- Governor Sheng ( talk) 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I need an assessment of how reliable this author and his book Ogledalo pravde (written in Serbo-Croatian) is.

Dražen Kutleša is an archbishop of the Catholic Church and is an expert in canon law. He's an alumnus of the Pontifical Urban University in Rome. He mostly writes about inner-church issues, such as Herzegovina Affair or the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje.

Regarding the first issue, his approach is historical and regarding the latter issue, in his book Ogledalo pravde he comes out as a skeptic.

Ogledalo pravde was published by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, while he was still a priest. This book was used as a source for scholarly works ( [9]) at Charles University (Prague, Czechia [10]), University of Osijek (Osijek, Croatia [11]), and Bursa Uludağ University ( Bursa, Turkey [12]). It was also used as a refrence in at least three other books - Belaj, Bulat and Perić. His book is mentioned by mainstream media in Croatia ( [13]) such as Jutarnji list [14] (2nd most read), Slobodna Dalmacija [15] (9th most read), Večernji list [16] (4th most read), Express, published by 24 sata (Croatia) [17] (17th most read); in Bosnia and Herzegovina [18] such as Slobodna Bosna [19] (9th most read).

-- Governor Sheng ( talk) 13:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so the background to this is this talk page notice. Something (Beatles song) uses a number of sources I have significant doubts about, as well as one (Discogs) that is currently deprecated (IIRC). Additionally, it also includes a book from a publisher that may only have published one book, and one from a publisher that seems to have only published one author. My instinct is that these probably shouldn't be used in a FA, with the possible exception of the one-author publisher, as that author ( Bruce Spizer) is considered by some to be a subject-matter expert. Since this is an FA, and I'm not very familiar with music sources, I'd like some additional input. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Its a bit hard to judge "a ton of sources" as one lump. But they all do look like they might not pass RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Femkemilene:

Is this story in yaleclimateconnections.org reliable for a list of groups criticizing Planet of the Humans. It is being used with other sources to say that "was criticized by climate scientists, enviromentalists, and renewable energy proponents for what they claimed as being outdated and misleading."

As I understand it, Yale Climate Connections is regarded as a best source for climate energy but User:173.198.134.98 points out that it is sponsored by The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment [20] and that Jeremy Grantham is shown in the film to be someone who invested in timber and gave money to environmental groups. Given that the alleged conflict of interest is that Grantham is trying to promote wood biofuels I feel that the fact that the article says that the film has "a valid critique of wood biomass" shows that any conflict of interest is not influencing its reporting but I would just like to hear other people's feelings on this, thank-you. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 13:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well even if it is an SPS, its an SPS by experts. So (at worst) its usable if attributed. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The source is fine. The journalist writes for the Guardian. They state "Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist and risk assessor" -- Guest2625 ( talk) 08:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would say so, with attribution, per Steven above. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSP says Rotten Tomatoes is reliable for review aggregation and news coverage, but maybe not for blog articles and critic opinion pages. What about its pages that list biographical information for an actor, eg. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/katherine_parkinson - is that enough to source a subject's date of birth and birthplace to a level that WP:BLP is happy with, or is this being aggregated from somewhere unreliable? -- Lord Belbury ( talk) 10:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Good question. I found this at [21]:

"Your movie/actor information is wrong!

Thanks for catching that. We work hard to make sure all of our movie and actor information is correct, but sometimes this is not the case, due to studio changes, data import errors, etc. We also list wide release dates, which may look wrong to users who live in areas with previews and limited release showings.

If you do find inaccurate data, please​​ tell us here​, and we will check the data against our sources and contact the publicist or distributor if necessary."

I'm leaning not that good for WP:BLP stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

My instinct is that BLP requires a higher bar, and that this probably falls below that. There should be a better source available in many cases. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The source is fine. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the media conglomerate Comcast. They have access to databases that have birthdays of actors/actresses. There is no indication that the biography information is user generated.

Who owns Rotten Tomatoes? Who is the parent company?

Answer ID 1340 | Published 03/31/2019 10:59 AM | Updated 03/31/2019 11:00 AM

In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes and its parent site Flixster were acquired by Fandango (which is owned by Comcast). Warner Bros. retains a minority stake in the merged entities, including Fandango.

Also the fact that they have a corrections feature is essential for a media site. All newspapers have a way of providing corrections. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 08:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable per the information provided by Gråbergs Gråa Sång. A hallmark of a reliable source is the willingness to correct inaccurate information. The fact that they do so is a sign that they are reliable for this very information. Sources that insist on their own perfection, and provide no mechanism to correct problems, are suspect, however I have much greater confidence in a source that provides a mechanism for correcting inaccurate information. It lets me know their information is more trustworthy. -- Jayron 32 19:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable as not user-generated and corrected subject to checks, Atlantic306 ( talk) 01:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Are the following sources reliable for the statement at People's Mujahedin of Iran:

The MEK has been described as a "cult" by former MEK members.

Sources:

• Khodabandeh, Massoud (January 2015). "The Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and Its Media Strategy: Methods of Information Manufacture". Asian Politics & Policy. 7 (1): 173–177. doi: 10.1111/aspp.12164. ISSN  1943-0787.
• Banisadr, Masoud (2009). "Terrorist Organizations Are Cults" (PDF). Cultic Studies Review. 8 (2): 156–186.

The authors of both of those articles are former MEK members. Both journals claim to be peer-reviewed, though the second journal looks less well-known. Some users have said that MEK members who have defected should not be considered reliable sources on the MEK. VR _talk 14:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think with attribution would be fine. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• What Slatersteven said. This sounds like an obvious case for WP:BIASED - they're a source with a clear point-of-view on the subject publishing in an otherwise reliable format. If the journals are reasonably reputable, then they're clearly citable, but being a former MEK member is something that would certainly require a mention in an in-line citation. I definitely disagree with the assertion that being a former MEK member automatically renders unreliable every single thing anyone ever publishes ever again, in any venue. It wouldn't hurt to dig up a secondary source if possible, though that probably wouldn't change the wording (the result is "these former MEK members say this" either way.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• The journals that are being cited are reliable sources. I'm unable to access the first source to read the article. The second article is by a former MEK member. He is not a reliable source for determining in wikivoice that the MEK is a cult. He is obviously biased. He can, however, be used to provide his opinion (with inline indication of his former MEK status) of what a former MEK member thinks. Little weight should be given to his opinion as far as due weight. I'll assume the first source is another former MEK member, otherwise, there should be no 's' in "described as a "cult" by former MEK member(s)". It's also not quite clear to me why cult has been placed in quotation marks. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 07:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• This seems like more of an original research or "undue" problem, than a problem from a reliable source perspective. Like User:Aquillion said above, a secondary source would be better if this is something controversial. Spudlace ( talk) 01:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Source: [22]
• My concerns: The chief of this website Paul Antonopoulos had been criticized he posted hate comments on a neo-nazi website called Stormfront (website). I think this person has anti-Turkish sentiment based on his "news" on that website, and he posted comments about denying a chemical attack, and racist comments (you can see here on the video). Is this source reliable? Beshogur ( talk) 07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but does someone want to use it on Wikipedia? What for? Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone used in Pan-Turkism article. Beshogur ( talk) 15:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Antonopoulos a known neo-nazi anyways? --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A Stormfront contributor? Sounds like a good candidate for non-controversial removals. Spudlace ( talk) 01:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, is Australian-Charts a reliable source for commercial release dates? It seems to be definitive in terms of them however, I noticed that users can apparently submit songs. 2603:8081:160A:BE2A:BCAE:63F:A7D2:B29B ( talk) 01:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC) https://australian-charts.com/index.asp

Can you give an example please? I can only see chart entry dates on there, not release dates. Richard3120 ( talk) 16:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

If you click on most singles posted, they give you the release date (i.e. CD-Maxi). 2603:8081:160A:BE2A:95B9:B0EB:9723:1D15 ( talk) 20:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have my doubts... I don't know whether the dates are user-generated or not, and there's no guarantee they're correct. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the information on the Hung Medien australian-charts.com site is user generated from posts on its forum pages. It's unclear where the details for entries under "AVAILABLE ON FOLLOWING MEDIA" come from or what it actually refers to: is the date in the "Format medium" the date became available to radio stations, the public, just in Australia, or ? Sources, such as announcements in trade publications such as Billboard, professional reviews, artist bios/music reference books, record company/management press releases, etc., are usually used for this type of info. (It may be helpful to add a link to this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Record charts and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs for more input.) — Ojorojo ( talk) 15:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is defence-blog.com a reliable reference? An editor claims it is, despite there being zero evidence it's anything more than a website edited by a single person with no expertise. The about us page lists a single person (Dylan Malyasov) as "co-founder and editor-in-chief", and no other staff. I cannot find any evidence, other than claims by Dylan Malyasov himself, that he means the recognised expert part of WP:SPS. FDW777 ( talk) 13:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say not, its just a blog. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven - the website is well-named, it looks like a blog about defence stuff. Not reliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sam Sloan § Removed most anusha.com citations. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be great to get some input on not only this discussion, but also on the reliability of Familypedia in Talk:Sam Sloan#More children?. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You might have thought we literally just concluded an RFC on the matter, but see Talk:Hugh Walpole. Is a Peter Hitchens blog post review WP:DUE use of a deprecated source? - David Gerard ( talk) 16:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Staff reviews of deprecated sources should fall under RSOPINION and should be used where the source would normally be considered as part of the "expert" body of reviews for a work - eg Mail entertainment staff writers reviewing British creative works, but only for their opinion and not factual details of the work. Though I'm not sure of its need on this specific article as its only bringing up a book in passing and the review of that seems unnecessary. But if there were an article on said book, then that review would seem appropriate - it wouldn't count towards notability or other checks if there were no other sources to support the article, but if among multiple appropriate RSes and other reviews, that would be fine. -- Masem ( t) 16:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION requires that the opinion be in an RS - it's specifically about opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. That doesn't apply here - David Gerard ( talk) 17:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and this was discussed before [27]. An example RSOPINION gives is of an opinion from an RS, but it does not say that the opinion must come from an RS. Obviously, though, we don't want Random John Doe's Blog to be used as sourcing due to RSOPINION, so there is a factor of UNDUE in regards to whether the DM's staff review is considered part of the expert body of reviewers in that topic area. In the case of the DM, its opinions on British entertainment is actually well discussed in broader sources (from research back at the time of that discussion) so it would seem to be inappropriate to ignore their reviews on British works, when relevant. (I don't it is for this specific instance). -- Masem ( t) 17:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion you cite is a discussion of your attempts to add a DM cite to an article on Dr Who, and having everyone else disagree with you and point out you're wrong. That is, it opposes your position here, rather than supporting it - David Gerard ( talk) 22:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeeeah, that's not what that discussion looks like (And that was over a review of a Doctor Who episode from a noted critic that happened to end up at the Daily Mail, which I will agree that on the specifics is vastly different from this case here where I would agree it is undue). -- Masem ( t) 22:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It ended with a straw poll that said you were wrong, and your cite to the Mail remains out of the article. That you take this as a win demonstrates that you literally failed at counting votes in a straw poll - David Gerard ( talk) 23:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The straw poll was on the question "Should we hold a request for comment on whether the Daily Mail is reliable for its entertainment reviews? " not about the use in that article at all. And you'll notice that some of the "no"s were worried about the specificness of that question to just the DM and to just reviews, so it wasn't rejecting the option of an RFC at all. -- Masem ( t) 16:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor, above, maintains that the policy on not using the Mail as a WP:RS means we cannot quote the opinions of music critics, art critics or literary critics from its columns. I see nothing in past decisions that justifies this contention - the policy specifically allows for exceptions, and as Mail pieces by writers such as Bernard Levin have later appeared in book form as collections of their authors' journalism it seems silly to say we can quote a Mail review if it is reprinted in book form, but not otherwise. The literary critic in question in this case is Peter Hitchens, though I confess I do not know if the piece has been reprinted in hard covers. At all events, quoting it seems to me wholly respectful of our policy on the Mail as WP:RS. Tim riley talk 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tim Riley. Closers of the Daily Mail RfC stated that there was no intention to exclude opinions. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Undue. The deprecation of the Mail on Sunday was recently formalized in on this noticeboard. The source of the quote in the Hugh Walpole article is "Holiday Reading", a blog post by MailOnline columnist Peter Hitchens. Furthermore, the article is on "Peter Hitchens blog", a blog within the Mail on Sunday website. Newspaper blogs are typically treated with more caution than the publications they are under, and since the Mail on Sunday is deprecated, its blog is at least as unreliable. The due weight policy states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." "Peter Hitchens blog" is not a reliable source, so the correct weight assigned to the opinions within is zero. WP:RSOPINION applies to " opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable", but does not apply here because neither the Mail on Sunday nor "Peter Hitchens blog" is recognized as reliable. —  Newslinger  talk 17:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That line " opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable" is clearly marked as one example of where RSOPINION lies, and does not set the bounds for it. -- Masem ( t) 17:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No unreliable source suddenly becomes reliable by labelling its claims as opinions. That interpretation would enable any low-quality source to make an end run around the verifiability policy by doing so. As a guideline, WP:RS does not bypass the WP:V policy (which includes WP:QS – and all deprecated sources are questionable sources). However, if the opinions are covered by actual reliable sources, then the reliable sources can be cited for those claims. —  Newslinger  talk 18:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinions are not reliable, period, per RSOPINION; they must be attributed and not spoken in Wikivoice, and whether they should be included depends on a number of factors with DUE/WEIGHT being a big one. An opinion piece published in the NYTimes falls under RSOPINION and is no more reliable than an opinion piece in the DM, but there is obviously something to be said that the NYTimes' political op-ed staff carry much more weight for including their opinion on a political topic than the DM political op-ed staff, and even that DM staff would have more weight than Random Joe's political blog. That's where knowing if the source or author is considered an appropriate expert voice in the relevant field that we'd have to consider an opinion they have published regardless of where it was published under WEIGHT among other policies. In terms of the DM, the only area that I'm familiar with where their staff have any weight is reviews of British media (film, tv, books, etc.) as some of the DM staff writers have notable histories from other papers and are considered experts.

There is nothing in RSOPINION that we would require an RS to source a deprecated or other non-RS for use of their opinion, since that would also apply to RSOPINIONS from otherwise RS sources (NYTimes op-eds for example). There's a reason we have DUE/WEIGTH is because it is extremely rare for there to be RS articles that summarize any possible RSOPINIONs for us, so we have to figure out the WEIGHT of available opinions ourselves, which factors in several elements. But whether the source is reliable or not is not an exclusion from RSOPINION at all. While the source may be questionable under WP:QS, things like reviews do not fall into any of the warning flags that QS warns against, so again, they would still be allowed only for these opinions-as-reviews, if they are appropriate for the subject area. -- Masem ( t) 19:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If a notable critic published his own blog, it would be a RS and could be used in "Critical reception" sections of Wikipedia articles. There is no reason to disqualify the blog just because it is included in the website of a newspaper that is a deprecated source due to its general reporting. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hitchens is notable, but not as a critic. And even then, his blog wouldn't automatically be an RS. Someone who isn't notable as a critic, publishing a blog, in a deprecated source? - David Gerard ( talk) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION explicitly states that "opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable" are "reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact". That explicit qualification applies to opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable such as The New York Times ( RSP entry), but not to ones in unreliable sources such as the Mail on Sunday. As a result, opinion pieces in The New York Times are generally assigned a higher weight than opinion pieces in the Mail on Sunday. Due to the unreliability of the Mail on Sunday, its opinion pieces are much more likely to constitute undue weight; opinions in the Mail on Sunday can still be used under WP:ABOUTSELF, or if they gain weight by receiving coverage in actual reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk 02:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You are omitting the lede to that statement in RSOPINION: A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. This is clear that this is but one case where we consider the source to be an RSOPINION, but does not define the extent. There is no requirement stated in RSOPINION that the source has to be an RS. -- Masem ( t) 02:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but just because the reliable sources guideline fails to make the assertion that "opinion pieces in sources recognized as unreliable may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact" does not mean that the assertion is true. If the guideline does not say something, then we defer to the related policies, WP:QS and WP:DUE. —  Newslinger  talk 02:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind QS does not disallow unreliable/deprecated sources, as long as they are used creafully, are not used for fact, they are attributed, and not used in contentious places (BLP). DUE is definitely the guideline principle here to keep out random blogs from topics and allow opinions only from people generally considered experts for that specific topic area. As I agree with below, in this specific case of the Hitchens piece, he is not an expert in this specific topic area of Walpole so should not be used. But if we were talking a contemporary British media work, he and many of the other notable critics that write for the DM and in other deprecated brit tabloids like the Mirror/Sun would be fully acceptable as summarizing the critical response to a British work, in the context of UNDUE. -- Masem ( t) 15:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, An opinion included from the primary source, if challenged, needs a compelling rationale for inclusion. Opinions are cheap, and outlets for opinions are often undiscriminating in what they publish now that the cost of newsprint is not an issue. So a primary-sourced opinion needs to be either an acknowledged expert or sufficiently prominent that it is discussed in third party RS.

This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a collection of opinions by random activists drawn directly from primary sources. Guy ( help! - typo?) 10:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That is where DUE comes into play to make sure that we're not just including every random blog that commented on a topic. If we are turning to RSOPINIONS from sources that are not typically RS for facts, it should be because the people making said opinions are considered appropriate experts to include their opinions for the specific topic. In the specific matter, if the topic were a work of contemporary British media, reviews from notable British critics - regardless if they were in the Guardian, Daily Mail, or their own web site - would be reasonable to include per DUE as an RSOPINION. In the specific case in point, which is NOT about a contemporary British work, that review is unnecessary. -- Masem ( t) 14:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The basic idea ("if the topic were a work of contemporary British media, reviews from notable British critics - regardless if they were in the Guardian, Daily Mail, or their own web site - would be reasonable to include") is sound, but there is a further complication; The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday might put words on paper or on a web page that claim to be the words of notable British critics and have bylines naming notable British critics but are actually either edited versions or complete fabrications. I have seen zero evidence that any other source -- including rival British tabloids -- has this problem. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

David's pointed out one example of that below, but the question becomes if this is really happening or not. The example that David gives (linking to [28]) could easily be explained that the writer at DM wrote it flowery at the DM and then in the book form backed off. It could be the DM editors flowered it up, sure, but there's other explanations as well, and given the other examples of how the DM altered others' work, this doesn't seem to be in the same ilk, but that's only one case to go on. (But I want to be clear, there are reason to remain suspect here). If this is a persistent problem at the DM, then we should have an RFC/discussion to specifically exclude DM commentary (outside when they are talking about themselves) from RSOPINION inclusion. -- Masem ( t) 15:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, seriously? Sigh. I wonder about the competence of some people. Guy ( help! - typo?) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Policy on this matter is given in WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author". Sometimes people forget that a source is not just the publication, but also the author; per WP:SOURCEDEF: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) / The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) / The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) / Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." In short, an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject is in itself a reliable source. If the question here is "Is an opinion by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject made unreliable by the publication source?" then the answer is no. As we tend to prefer our commentators on Foo to be experts on Foo rather than Poo, the true question for the use of the Hitchens quote in the Walpole article is "Is Peter Hitchens regarded as authoritative in relation to Hugh Walpole?" If he is, then all is fine; if he is not, then the quote is mere whimsy and the opinion is not notable (unless, of course, the opinion itself became the subject of discussion by reliable sources). SilkTork ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Is the messenger notable? Yes. Is the message notable? Yes. The organ of delivery may be tainted, but the information is valid and viable. - 2A00:23C7:2B89:BE00:D38:19EF:CC6A:387C ( talk) 10:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the message notable? Yes. This is not at all in evidence, and the prima facie considerations (deprecated source, messenger not notable as a critic) are against it - David Gerard ( talk) 11:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens is a columnist who writes about contemporary British life and politics. His view on a nineteenth century author isn't relevant. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For everything else said, this right here for this specific case. Pretty much, whether Hitchens was writing his opinion in the Guardian or the DM, as a contemporary critic, he is not an expert on 19th century topics, and thus would fail UNDUE. -- Masem ( t) 15:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, Peter Hitchens is a random blowhard. All the snark of his brother but without the incisive wit. Guy ( help! - typo?) 10:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Deprecation means we cannot know if Hitchens actually wrote the article or if it was published as written. It is not the same thing as "generally unreliable," where exceptions could be made. As stated, it would not be a reliable source for facts, wherever published. Furthermore, per weight, opinions must be published or reported in reliable sources before they have any weight. We wouldn't include an opinion expressed in comments on a youtube video for example because it would have no weight. TFD ( talk) 17:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

That is nothing what deprecation means at all. It may be a source-specific question in regards to the DM , but I do not see anyone in the RFC challenging that the staff writers works were fictionalized (in contrast to third-party opinions which were objectively found to have been manipulated). And as I pointed out above, RSOPINION at no point requires opinions to be published in RSes to be used, it is just using an opinion published in an RS as an example of what would be an RSOPINION source, not setting the bound there. UNDUE is the place where we judge if the person behind the opinion makes it appropriate to include (which random YouTube comments would clearly fail but a notable critic would likely not). -- Masem ( t) 18:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The DM does fictionalise staff writers' works. There's an extended flowery quote in Death of Keith Blakelock that an editor really wanted in because it was "a very moving description of what the men did to try to save Blakelock". However, it seems to have been fictionalised - the bylined journalist also wrote it up in a book, and the book version was vastly less flowery than the DM version. The book version is now in the article, the DM version isn't. That is, the DM jazzed up, i.e. fabricated, quotes attributed to a person, in an article by a staff writer. So yes, the DM does in fact do that thing - David Gerard ( talk) 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The Fool's Errand

Above, Masem writes "I do not see anyone in the RFC challenging that the staff writers works were fictionalized (in contrast to third-party opinions which were objectively found to have been manipulated)." [29] This was immediately followed by evidence that The The Daily Mail does indeed fictionalize staff writers' works. [30]

Trying to decide in what areas The Daily Mail is reliable is a fool's errand. Again and again well-meaning editors have tried to figure out some area where The Daily Mail is reliable, and again and again The Daily Mail has published fabrications in those exact areas.

The problem with The Daily Mail is systemic and affects everything they do without exception. They always choose whatever behavior maximizes profit. This keeps fooling Wikipedia editors who try to read the tea leaves and predict what areas they are reliable for.

If publishing accurate football scores maximizes profit, they will publish accurate football scores. If they ever decide that telling lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week will be profitable they will tell lies about whether Wigan Athletic F.C. won last week.

If publishing articles that appeal to Conservative and Unionist Party members maximizes profit, they will do that. If they ever decide that suddenly switching to supporting the Liberal Democrats will maximize profit, they will start doing that instead.

If publishing retractions and corrections makes money, they will publish retractions and corrections. If publishing retractions and corrections loses money, they will stop publishing retractions and corrections.

If telling lies about celebrities brings in more money than they lose through fines and lawsuits, they will tell lies about celebrities. If telling lies about celebrities starts costing them more in lawsuits than they make in increased circulation, they will see that they are losing money on the deal and stop telling lies about celebrities.

Note that they do whatever maximizes profit, not whatever maximizes readership or makes the readers happy, although those things often overlap. If they ever decide that offending 90% of their readers will maximize profit, they will happily offend 90% of their readers.

Because of this basic truth, trying to decide in what areas The Daily Mail will decide that being reliable will turn a profit is a fool's errand. You are holding yourself hostage to their judgement as to what will maximize profit, and assuming that just because so far telling the truth in some limited area has been profitable, it will necessarily remain profitable. The Daily Mail is not to be trusted in any area, even areas where you think that they have a history of being reliable. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I still think the crowning glory was when we discovered that you literally cannot trust dailymail.co.uk to represent the past content of the Daily Mail - David Gerard ( talk) 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

So we now know we now know that we can't even trust WP:ABOUTSELF material (TDM lies about what is contained in TDM). There are other ways that TDM can lie that we haven't caught them doing yet but the basic principle above still applies. You cannot trust TDM to present the same content from the same URL to different users or to the same user at different times. We haven't caught them doing this, but it is technically possible, and If they ever decide that serving different content to different users is profitable, they will serve different content to different users.

You also cannot trust TDM's printed version sold in West London to be the same as what appears to be the same issue sold in East London. Again, just because we haven't caught them doing this, that is a piss poor reason to assume without evidence that they never will.

I remember reading about a paid TDM writer who published the same material elsewhere and it was obvious that their words as published in TDM were edited. Was that you who wrote that? Does anyone have links to that? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Except, the RFC for the DM did not end on this note. Absolutely unreliable for any factual reporting expect about itself, yes. But the RFC did not say anything about its opinions from staff. If there needs to be another to say its staff opinions itself can't be trusted because of upstream editors even manipulating those, so be it. Knowing that the DM is generally conservative politically, we know its opinions likely won't be used in most articles per UNDUE. The only place that is really being challenged here is in reviews (opinions) of contemporary media, where the DM has been bringing in notable critics from other publications over the years, and who still seem respected as individuals for their reviews of British works. Could those reviews be manipulated? Possibly but as many have example works from other publications it would be easy to see that type of manipulation as well. This is probably the only area I can tell where the DM should not be readily dismissed, and that's still within the allowances of RSOPINION and UNDUE (in that British papers reviewing British contemporary media are pretty much expert sources). -- Masem ( t) 15:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. It looks like we are going to have to go through Yet Another Daily Mail RfC to stop editors from playing Whac-A-Mole with arguments like "the RFC did not say anything about its opinions from staff" or "so far they have never lied about rugby scores". I am thinking of wording it

"Proposed: The post-1970 Daily Mail cannot be used as a reference on Wikipedia, with no exceptions. This specifically covers WP:ABOUTSELF material, because The Daily Mail has been known to lie about itself, and it specifically covers direct quotes and material published under bylines, because The Daily Mail has been known to fabricate both. Citations that would be otherwise acceptable under policies such as WP:SELFPUB are not allowed if the only source for them is The Daily Mail."

I hate to put us through that again, but as long as editors decide to go on The Fools Errand described above we are going to have to arrive at a consensus that they need to stop doing that. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If we have two or more confirmed cases of staff opinion being altered, I don't think even a full drawn out RFC is needed, just a straw poll to include that language. That said, there probably still be a carve out when the topic is specifically something about the DM itself, and commentary from the DM upper echelon is required and we can't get that from anywhere else, as long as we be clear that that's what the DM stated. Ideally, if it is true controversy that the DM is at the center of, more reliable sources will report the DM's position and we don't have to touch the DM but I can still see the need to use them very limited and judiciously if we need to provide a non-self-serving counterpoint to an argument. But that's literally it then for DM stuff we can even start to us. -- Masem ( t) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It lies, it does not matter what it tells lies about it cannot be trusted for anything. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You can't rule out the possibility that the DM quoted top DM management as stating the exact opposite depending on who accessed the webpage or where they bought the print edition. All it would take is for them to decide that doing that will increase profits. We cannot use the DM as a source for statements by DM management. They really will lie about anything, including fabricating statements from their own top management. I say no exceptions. I say wait until another source reports what DM management said. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"Global Times was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories." Link to the discussion

Source of web page which has been used: You who came from Korea

Article in which used: My Love from the Star

Yu Zheng, Chinese screenwriter and producer, found My Love from the Star worthy of being studied, and thought the plot was "simple but has tension. A good combination of outdoor and indoor scenes." Variety show director Pang Bo remarked that the makers of the series paid attention to technical details even in the shortest scenes involving special effects.

The content is neither controversial nor negative in any sense.

-ink&fables «talk» 09:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The following source was used earlier for the same context but the citation was removed by an user on 10 October 2020 without removing the content. Link

Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources: [...] Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. [...] Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. [...]

So, I ask if the source should be cited or should be removed. -ink&fables «talk» 10:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to use a more respected publishing source. I supported the deprecation of the Global Times on that RFC. However, the support for deprecation was for content where nationalism/propaganda could lead to falsification of the facts. The material in this case is not controversial and is an individual's opinion. The opinion is from Yu Zheng a noted Chinese screenwriter and producer, so I'm fine with the sources use in such a situation. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 11:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I myself prefer other sources, but at that time critical reviews of K-dramas were less written as compared to the present. As I am planning to take this article for GAN, it is kind of necessary for a TV series article to include a section of Critical response of a respectable length, and this is one of the few critic reviews. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 11:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Guest2625: the author is Wei Xi not Yu Zheng. Nothing I see suggests that Wei Xi is a noted screenwriter and producer. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Horse Eye's Back: I think Guest2625 is clear of this fact. He wrote that "[t]he opinion is from Yu Zheng" not that the author is Yu Zheng. -ink&fables «talk» 16:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

But if Yu Zheng isnt the author of the piece then we cant use this per WP:BLP and the point is moot. We would need the Yu Zheng quote to either appear in a WP:RS or be in a piece covered by about self for us to use it. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

"Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia." Common sense indicates that the provided quote doesn't in anyway harm Yu Zheng. Also it doesn't make sense why the source would fabricate Yu Zheng's opinion. I'm fine with including this noncontroversial entertainment-related material. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 13:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Common sense doesn't override WP:BLP. Its also not possible for us to know which quotes or opinions in unreliable sources are fabricated, thats why we have deprecation. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Does the Global Times have any history of fabricating quotes? I don't recall any claims of fabricated quotes in the RfC. Most of the concerns were about the editorial slant of the Global Times on political issues. From what I've seen, there's no risk that this quote is fabricated, and I can't see why the Global Times would possibly fabricate a quote about a South Korean TV drama. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable. The September RfC deprecated the Global Times with no carve-out exceptions for its entertainment coverage. The proposed text does does not meet the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPRS because it contains claims about other living persons: "You who came from Korea" is written by Wei Xi, a non-notable person, and not Yu Zheng or Pang Bo themselves. —  Newslinger  talk 14:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the article was not written by the screenwriter Yu Zheng or the director Pang Bo, both of whom are living persons. It was written by Wei Xi. If Wei Xi were writing about themself or their own opinions, then the Global Times piece might qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF in a limited number of situations. However, in this case, Wei Xi is making claims about other living persons in a deprecated source. This is not an acceptable use of a deprecated source. —  Newslinger  talk 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Newslinger: Yes, Global Times was deprecated with no exceptions for its entertainment coverage, but nothing was discussed about entertainment coverage in that following RFC. I am not talking about the source to be used perennially for all entertainment related articles. It is clearly written in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources: "In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not." This is the fact that the mentioned source was cited earlier in the article and only source was removed (after its deprecation) without removing the information from the article (as I already mentioned above). I am asking that - Can this source be used in this following context? - due the fact that it was there before. -ink&fables «talk» 16:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The subjects of the claim are different from the author of the article, so the context does not justify the use of the source. —  Newslinger  talk 17:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Perfectly fine to use: Deprecation is not a ban on usage. A review written by a famous Chinese screenwriter is perfectly usable. None of the concerns voiced in the RfC about state propaganda apply here. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that Yu Zheng (the screenwriter) is not the author, but is cited in the article. Others have raised BLP concerns. Nothing being proposed for inclusion here is in any way derogatory towards a living person, so I don't think these concerns are justified. There's no ban on usage of Global Times as a source, and this is a case in which its use is completely unobjectionable. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the basic premise of BLP. It covers all material about living people "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” not just the derogatory. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't material about a living person, and negative material of course is subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. Yu Zheng gave his opinion of a TV series to the Global Times. There's no BLP risk involved in citing his opinion. It's a completely unobjectionable use of the Global Times. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This is material about Yu Zheng, a living person, including quotes attributed to them. Per WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Please actually check the use on My Love from the Star before saying whats in it or not. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The use in My Love from the Star is completely innocuous:

Yu Zheng, Chinese screenwriter and producer, found My Love from the Star worthy of being studied, and thought the plot was "simple but has tension. A good combination of outdoor and indoor scenes."

It's really ridiculous to consider this a BLP concern. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 09:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thats a quotation... Per BLP *all* quotations fall under BLP. Where is the ridiculousness? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

BLP is meant to make sure that living persons are covered accurately, and especially to make sure that there's no libelous material on Wikipedia. Do you actually think there's a risk that Global Times fabricated a Chinese screenwriter's opinion on a South Korean drama, and what do you base that suspicion on? There's nothing even remotely derogatory or controversial here about Yu Zheng. It's a relatively harmless quote from him about a TV drama. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you making some kind of WP:IAR argument that we ignore the BLP policy? Whether or not you and I agree with the BLP policy its ironclad on this issue. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that the claim that this is a BLP concern only makes sense if you're claiming that the quote is fabricated - and there's no indication whatsoever that it is. This rationale for removing the quote just seems incredibly contrived. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable, I have yet to see anything that suggests their entertainment coverage is of a higher quality than other areas. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliability needs context. In the context of verifying an opinion with in-text attribution (and especially a direct quote), the single MOST RELIABLE source POSSIBLE is the original publication that contained that opinion - ie its primary source. Even if that source is completely deprecated as a secondary source, it can NEVER be deprecated when used as a primary source. EVERY source is reliable for itself.

Sure, there are lots of policies and guidelines that limit what should and should not be included in an article (WP:DUE WEIGHT for example), and not every opinion should be included. BUT... if we DO determine that the opinion should be included, then we MUST be able to cite the primary source where it was published, to verify that we are quoting or paraphrasing it accurately... even if that source is deprecated in other contexts. Blueboar ( talk) 15:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Per Blueboar, RSOPIONION absolutely allows opinions like reviews to be used from deprecated sources (unless those were specifically excluded at deprecation), but the controlling policy becomes UNDUE, whether in this specific field is the Global Times reviewers considered part of the expert body of reviewers for this type of film. That I don't know and a question to be determined. If this is a one off review they did, probably not appropriate to include, even if it is one of the few reviews that exist for this film. -- Masem ( t) 16:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment it depends a lot on Yu Zheng's reputation. If he is known as a film critic and we would cite a blog if he had one, there's no issue with Global Times. If we wouldn't cite his blog, we shouldn't cite global times either. ( t · c) buidhe 18:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yu Zheng is a well known Chinese screenwriter and producer. He won the "Best Screenwriter" award at the Asian Television Awards, though there's no longer any source for this claim on his page, because the source has been removed. As I said in the recent noticeboard discussion on mass removal of sources from China-related articles, ill-considered blanket deprecations are damaging the encyclopedia. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

But I see above that there is a concern of misquoting what he said. I agree that is a fair concern. ( t · c) buidhe 02:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A fair concern based on what? Are there any known cases of the Global Times fabricating quotations? The RfC was mostly concerned with political bias. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 22:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Remove We do not trust deprecated sources for quotes, full stop. Find a RS, not a deprecated source. Reviews of popular culture by deprecated sources prima facie fail WP:UNDUE - David Gerard ( talk) 14:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There is nothing about deprecated sources that automatically disqualifies them from RSOPIONION, nor anything from RSOPINION that disallows deprecated sources. If the deprecated source is known to falsify its staff reviews, then that has to be established as part of the reasons to deprecate and that would be reason to not allow their use. That may be the situation at DM now but hasn't been shown here. (Whether the deprecated source should be used for RSOPINION is still guided by UNDUE however). -- Masem ( t) 18:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Here's the chain of guidance: WP:DEPS states, "Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances." WP:QS states, "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below." And finally, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts questionable sources to use in very limited situations, with one of the five criteria being that "it does not involve claims about third parties". The usage of the Global Times proposed in this discussion does involve claims about third parties, so the policy and guidance proscribe this usage. —  Newslinger  talk 00:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to highlight a very important point raised by Thucydides411: " Yu Zheng is a well known Chinese screenwriter and producer. He won the "Best Screenwriter" award at the Asian Television Awards, though there's no longer any source for this claim on his page, because the source has been removed. As I said in the recent noticeboard discussion on mass removal of sources from China-related articles, ill-considered blanket deprecations are damaging the encyclopedia." The following source was also from the Global Times. -ink&fables «talk» 03:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  That might make a difference if Yu Zheng wrote the Global Times article. However, the author is not Yu Zheng, but Wei Xi. For comparison, if a writer for Breitbart News ( RSP entry) wrote about another notable living person's views, the content would also be unusable under WP:BLPRS. —  Newslinger  talk 06:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

False equivalence. The Global Times was deprecated because of concerns regarding nationalism/political propaganda. Breitbart News was deprecated for other reasons. Focus on the article/source under discussion and not whatabout some other source. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 08:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Global Times was deprecated for publishing "false or fabricated information", just like Breitbart News. Substitute any deprecated source (including the Global Times) for Breitbart News and the results would be the same: if a writer for Breitbart News the deprecated source wrote about another notable living person's views, the content would also be unusable under WP:BLPRS. —  Newslinger  talk 15:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that was not the reason for deprecation. I've looked over the RfC again, and the close only says, Global Times is deprecated and is now considered an unreliable source. In the RfC, the discussion was primarily about the editorial stance of the Global Times (see, for example, the sources that you provided at the RfC) - particularly its nationalistic editorials. The default wording for "deprecation" in all RfCs is, "4. Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail", but that does not mean that a deprecated source has actually been found to publish fabricated information. "Deprecation" has more and more become a catch-all for disfavored sources, and the wording of the question has little to nothing to do with the actual reasons for deprecation. In the case of the Global Times, nothing remotely like fabrication of a quote was discussed at the RfC, as far as I can see. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• This has been brought up already by Thucydides411 who correctly predicted that these types of debates would be the inevitable consequence of deprecating Global Times: "I don't think most users realized just how much completely mundane, factual information would end up being unsourced (and could end up being scrubbed from Wikipedia). I think there should be a pause on these mass removals of sources, and a discussion about whether or not this is what Wikipedians really want to happen." Root problem is that Wikipedians who vote in favor of deprecation doesn't follow policy which states: A small number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation ... is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues It's too bad that Yu Zheng's quote can't be included in Wikipedia. ImTheIP ( talk) 08:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There have been multiple discussions proposing stopping removal of deprecated sources from Wikipedia, and they all failed - mostly because WP:V is policy. But if you want to start another one, feel free - David Gerard ( talk) 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I argue that most of the sources so "deprecated" on this noticeboard shouldn't be considered deprecated since they have been "deprecated" by votes cast in violation of Wikipedia policy. "Consensuses" on this noticeboard does not override policy. ImTheIP ( talk) 20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
      • You'd need to actually argue your case and get people to go along with it. Deprecation is an accepted procedure here. If you want to claim that deprecation as it's done substantially violates, WP:RS, I think that's what a judge would call a novel argument - David Gerard ( talk) 21:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
        • The comment you replied to is an argument. People apparently are going "along with it" since what the argument is based on is established Wikipedia policy. ImTheIP ( talk) 23:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@ David Gerard: The problem is that deprecation is being used too broadly. We begin with concerns that the Global Times publishes nationalistic editorials, and is therefore propagandistic. That turns into a vote for "deprecation". That then leads to completely mundane information, like a Chinese screenwriter's opinion on a Korean TV drama, being removed from Wikipedia. But the original concerns about the Global Times (nationalistic editorials) has nothing to do with the type of material being removed (a review of a TV show). It used to be that WP:RSN dealt with the reliability of sources in context. That seems to have gone out the window for a much blunter approach, in which outlets are labeled either "generally reliable" or "deprecated". The idea that a source could take a strongly Chinese nationalist point of view on international politics, while also publishing art reviews that contain real interviews with well known Chinese artists and critics, does not seem to compute any more on this noticeboard. The result is that all sorts of information about China (and I'm sure not only China is affected in this way) is being stripped from the encyclopedia, for no actual good reason. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You're just repeating the point you made last time this discussion came around, which was rejected then too - David Gerard ( talk) 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Rejected by whom? Many people agreed with me that this is a serious concern. Do you have any thoughts on what I actually wrote above? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 00:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The deprecated article in this deprecated newspaper says The day of the first snow should be a time for fried chicken and beer. Maybe, this bunch of nationalist fabricators have twisted the original scenario, which was about samgyetang and makgeolli? Enjoy another bowl of letter soup after your chimaek. Pldx1 ( talk) 12:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

These sources have consistently faulted on political news. While doing any academic writing, I had to cross check them with at least one more independent publication. My bottom line is based on the Daily Mail and The Sun. As to source progressive or conservative views, the mainstream outlets give ample voice to both sides on that note. I move the request to deprecate these sources for at least political news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3a80:a87:34bd:1dd8:9588:6b:8c73 ( talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell, Other98 and People's Democracy have never been discussed on RSN, and so are not eligible for an RfC. The other sources have already been discussed a fair bit, and deprecation never came up. In any case, deprecation for only one domain seems rather odd. If a source needs to be deprecated, it probably needs to be generally deprecated.

This suggestion seems overly broad and doesn't engage at all with past discussions/policy. For these reasons, I do not think engaging with this would yield useful results. Perhaps you could focus on a specific source and bring up specific reasons for changed status or discussion? Jlevi ( talk) 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, we cannot lump a ton of sources together and judge them as a whole. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Political position is not a useful criterion - David Gerard ( talk) 12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Lumping all the different news sources together might to lead to some not being properly evaluated in the discussion. Political positions *should be irrelevant* on this board, the only concern here relates to a particular source's reliability, their fact checking, how they resolve any errors. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's usually best to avoid discussing multiple unrelated things together. This principle holds across different types of discussions on Wikipedia: see WP:TRAINWRECK for details. At a minimum, it would be best to have a section or subsection heading for each distinct source if the entire source is being examined. —  Newslinger  talk 14:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

CounterPunch, The Daily Wire, and Rebel News are probably worth mentioning for their opinions when talking about media coverage and may be worth mentioning for their opinions in other cases. CounterPunch was founded and run by professional journalists and is rated "Mostly Factual" by MB/FC on grounds of inadequate hyperlinking [31] which generally means fine for Wikipedia but should be used with caution and avoided were possible. MB/FC notes numerous failed fact checks for both The Daily Wire and Rebel News so they probably should not be used. Jacobin and The Federalist may be better source on the left and right respectively. In my opinion, best sources in US politics are either wire services or foreign broadsheets though check WP:RSP. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 12:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In past discussions, editors considered Media Bias/Fact Check ( RSP entry) generally unreliable, so it is probably not the best benchmark to use by itself. —  Newslinger  talk 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Biased sources are allowed, a policy that I understand to include storied organizations like the ACLU, the SPLC and the American Poultry Association, which is generally reliable for non-controversial facts and figures. These are biased sources of the type that I would expect to see cited in an encyclopedia.

• Generally, I would not expect to see any of these listed sources in an encyclopedia. Counterpunch and Rebel News don't carry such an encyclopedic weight that they should be the cause of perennial controversies. What is it that we can't find less controversial sources for that makes these "go-to" sources? Spudlace ( talk) 03:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba by participate on the talk page. The article Udal of Mahoba currently includes the text

They were of mixed Ahir and Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan.

And I want to change it as same as written in the web page so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Udal_of_Mahoba

That page comes from A military Wiki; it uses text from Wikipedia, then allows anyone else to edit it. see WP:UGC No, it is not a reliable source, and should never be used in articles here. Curdle ( talk) 11:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to know if the following sources are to be considered as reliable when they make claims about the ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan :

• Ragep, F. Jamil; Ragep, Sally P.; Livesey, Steven John (1996). Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on Pre-Modern Science Held at the University of Oklahoma. BRILL. p. 178. ISBN 978-90-04-10119-7.

• George Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, Pub. for the Carnegie Institution of Washington, by the Williams & Wilkins Company, 1931, vol. 2 pt. 1, p. 1044

• William R. Newman, Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution, Harvard University Press, 1994. p. 94

Thank you very much.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The first source mentioned above by Wikaviani should be: Newman, William R. 1996. “The Occult and the Manifest among the Alchemists” in: Ragep, Jamil F.; Ragep, Sally P. (eds.). Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on Pre-Modern Science held at the University of Oklahoma. Leiden: Brill, pp. 173–198, p. 178. preview online

Now of course William R. Newman is generally a very reliable source. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is rather whether it is appropriate to cite a source like Newman on the ethnicity of Jabir ibn Hayyan, a question which lies far outside of Newman's field of expertise, when we could equally well cite sources like the following:

Kraus, Paul 1942-1943. Jâbir ibn Hayyân: Contribution à l'histoire des idées scientifiques dans l'Islam. I. Le corpus des écrits jâbiriens. II. Jâbir et la science grecque. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.

Nomanul Haq, Syed 1994. Names, Natures and Things: The Alchemist Jābir ibn Ḥayyān and his Kitāb al-Aḥjār (Book of Stones). Dordrecht: Kluwer, p. 33 n. 1. ( preview)

Apaugasma ( talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps even better:

Delva, Thijs 2017. "The Abbasid Activist Ḥayyān al-ʿAṭṭār as the Father of Jābir b. Ḥayyān: An Influential Hypothesis Revisited" in: Journal of Abbasid Studies, 4(1), pp. 35–61. preview, see introduction

For context, note that Jabir's ethnicity is fundamentally uncertain, and as a consequence has proven to be a very controversial issue among the editors of Jabir ibn Hayyan. Apaugasma ( talk) 23:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment : please note that the uncertainty about Jabir's ethnic background is already mentioned in the article : [32], the only question here, is to know if the 3 above sources are to be considered as being reliable when it comes to Jabir ibn Hayyan's ethnicity.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment : all the sources mentioned are reliable sources. The question is figuring out which ones are the best. This really does require a thorough investigation of the sources. A quick google book search indicates that some books say that Jabir is Persian other books say that he is Arabian. The best sources will be books or academic articles that solely focuses on his life. Also it is useful to follow the footnotes in the books to the original sources for the statement of his ethnicity. My feeling at the moment is that whether he is Arabian or Persian cannot be determined. In the wikipedia article, it wasn't clear to me why the one block quote towards the end had a whole sentence in bold face, seems a bit excessive. Perhaps italics. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 09:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment in cases like these its usually best in my view to substitute in the lead sentence ethnicity/nationality for language of literature. So Ammianus Marcellinus was a Latin historian, and Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek geographer, even though both were Romans of non-Roman descent. So Jabir ibn Hayyan might be, for brevity, an "Arabic author (who may have been) of Persian origin". I would say most sources look OK, but one from the 1940s is probably too old by this point. This field has moved on hugely since then. GPinkerton ( talk) 10:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@ GPinkerton: First of all, thank you for commenting on this. Note that the work of Kraus (1942-1943) is still the standard reference work in the field (Newman 1996: 178 as referred to above calling it "the brilliant work of Paul Kraus in the 1940s"; Nomanul Haq 1994: 31 n.1 as referred to above: "this powerful work of Kraus (Kraus [1942-3]) has been followed by a period of relative indifference"; Delva 2017 as referred to above n. 21 "[...] Paul Kraus in his monumental studies that were published in the thirties and the early forties of the previous century"). Also note that it is very misleading to state that the field has moved on hugely since then, because quite the opposite is actually the case (note how many sources from the 20s and 30s are cited in the sources mentioned above, and in the article's bibliography section). Apaugasma ( talk) 10:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment : According to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." Since the editors who added the sources under review to the article section (currently references 18–20) had the perspicacity to fully quote the relevant passage, a cursory inspection of them will quickly reveal that in each instant, the information is provided in passing. We've already established that the sources are otherwise reliable. Both in Newman 1994 and in Newman 1996, the principal topic of the publication is the concept of occult and manifest constituents of substances (on which Jabir was a pioneer), while in Sarton 1931 the topic is a general discussion of the relative contributions to chemistry of the Arabic Jabir corpus and the Latin Geber corpus; the information that Jabir was a "Persian alchemist" is thus not related to the principal topics of the publication. Therefore, these sources may not be reliable. Since there are sources focused on the topic at hand, in casu Kraus 1942-1943: I: xl-xli and Delva 2017: 36, this is what editors should cite. Apaugasma ( talk) 15:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This relates specifically to the question of Peterson's understanding of " cultural Marxism." Discussion here appears to suggest that Peterson knows what he's talking about when he conflates cultural Marxism with postmodernism and so called "neo-Marxism." It would be useful to cite a source that addresses the confusion. One such publication exists, would it be reasonable to cite it? Or at the very least cite Slavoj Žižek's overview (a valid expert opinion on the topic) of the matter as detailed in the book's introduction. Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, Ben Burgis, Conrad Bongard Hamilton, Matthew McManus, Marion Trejo, John Hunt Publishing, 24 Apr 2020 - Political Science - 256 pages. Acousmana ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Acousmana, I'm involved in that discussion but I don't think I understand what you are asking here. Is your question, is this book reliable? How are you suggesting it should be used? On what grounds should we consider it reliable/not reliable? The heading suggests you are asking if books published by John Hunt Publishing should be considered reliable. However, your reference to Slavoj Žižek seems to be asking if Žižek's opinion should be DUE in the article. If that is the case why would we filter that view through the authors of the book? Ultimately, even as an involved editor I'm not sure what you are specifically trying to understand here. Note that means I'm not supporting or objecting at this time. Springee ( talk) 18:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)\

non-expert editors are offering personal opinions on a matter they are not qualified to assess. Žižek, who has actually engaged in a high-profile debate with Peterson, is a notable authority on this very subject (where postmodernism/poststructuralism/Marxism may or many not intersect and what exactly it is Peterson means when he uses the term 'neo-Marxist'). Couldn't be clearer really. Acousmana ( talk) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

But I don't understand what question you are asking here. It sound's like Žižek would be a fine expert to refute some of Peterson's statements. That can be done as attributed expert opinion. However, that would be independent of John Hunt Publishing. That is why I'm confused. It's just not clear what you are specifically asking or how a "yes" or "no" would apply to the article. Springee ( talk) 19:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

"that would be independent of John Hunt Publishing," could you please note that the introduction of the publication is written by Žižek (indicated in the original comment), a cursory glance at the book's contents would have established this. Acousmana ( talk) 20:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, what is your actual question? Is the question about the publisher or Žižek? Is Žižek the editor? I don't have a copy of the book so I can't exactly just open it up. That Žižek had involvement with the book is not clear. Is your actual question, can we use this book as an expert opinion on Peterson? Personally I wouldn't be sure. While the authors have reasonable academic standing the publisher doesn't appear to be academic press. I'm assuming you mean for Žižek to vouch for the book but I don't think that is a normally acceptable way to establish the bonafides of this book. If you want Žižek to counterpoint Peterson why not just find material by Žižek? Springee ( talk) 22:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

there's a link above, you see it right? there's this thing, Google Books Preview... so just to be clear, are you disputing the reliability of the publisher, and Žižek's contribution to said book? Acousmana ( talk) 22:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I did follow the link but what am I supposed to do there. Ultimately I haven't disputed or confirmed anything yet because you haven't asked a clear question. Springee ( talk) 22:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Friend User:David Eppstein has relevant thoughts on John Hunt Publishing and its somewhat unique business model, past expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Burgis. Might like expanding on that here, with his characteristic gruffness. Hyperbolick ( talk) 22:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Gruffness? Anyway, as I said there, John Hunt Publishing has a business model in which some books are published through the traditional editorial process, some are pay-to-publish, and they won't tell us which are which. Because we can't tell which of their books are properly edited, we also can't tell which ones are reliable, so I think we should treat them all as unreliable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Gruffness, yes, but it's endearing. I come part of the way to your view. Apparently most books they publish in a vanity press sense are in fiction, which we wouldn't cite. Would still take anything in the nonfiction space with a grain of salt. Maybe a whole pinch. Hyperbolick ( talk) 22:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

    David Eppstein, I agree. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• In this instance, I don't think Zizek's opinion is dependent on a publisher's editorial process for its reliability or DUE inclusion. He could have said exactly the same thing on a blog, and it would be covered by the WP:SPS carveout for experts opining within their own field, IMO. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Newimpartial here based on the description of Hunt Publishing. If this book were published by an academic press we could probably assume reliability based on the publisher. Because we can't tell if it was a pay to publish case we have to treat it basically as a self published work. That said, if any of the authors can be shown to be an expert in the relevant field (and it is argued that Zizek is) then we can include their comments as self published expert opinion. This would need to be an attributed opinion. What might be harder is if we are using Zizek to vouch for the general reliability of the claims of another author of the book. I think it would be helpful to know more about how this would be used and see trace from the wiki text to the source. Springee ( talk) 04:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

if any of the authors can be shown to be an expert in the relevant field (and it is argued that Zizek is), undoubtedly Žižek is an expert in the relevant field, it doesn't need to be argued, Peterson is demonstrably not an expert in same, Wikipedia should not be presenting the latter as an authority on something he quite clearly isn't. Peterson is regurgitating antisemitic conspiratorial nonsense (vis-à-vis his take on "Cultural Marxism") and Žižek states as much. We need to make it clear that Peterson is dabbling in bullshit when he steps out of his ivory tower and enters the fray on sociopolitical subject matter, his "Post-modern Neo-Marxist" PragerU endorsed conspiratorial fantasy shouldn't be presented as factual. Acousmana ( talk) 10:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would contend that based on Žižek's expertise (his academic reputation) the following assessment is generally reliable and can be referenced: "I find Peterson’s fixation on political correctness and other targets as the extreme outgrowth of ‘cultural Marxism’ (a bloc which, in its ‘postmodern neo-Marxist’ form, comprises the Frankfurt School, the ‘French’ poststructuralist deconstructionism, identity politics, gender and queer theories, etc.) to have numerous problems. He seems to imply this ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ is the result of a deliberate shift in Marxist (or communist) strategy: after communism lost the economic battle with liberal capitalism (waiting in vain for the revolution to arrive in the developed Western world), its leaders, we are told, decided to move to the domain of cultural struggles (sexuality, feminism, racism, religion, etc), systematically undermining the cultural foundations and values of our freedoms...The notion of ‘postmodern neo-Marxism’ (or its more insidious form, ‘cultural Marxism’), manipulated by some secret communist centre and aiming to destroy Western freedoms, is a pure alt-right conspiracy theory (and the fact that it can be mobilized as part of a ‘liberal’ defence of our freedoms says something about the immanent weaknesses of the liberal project). First, there is no unified field of ‘cultural Marxism’— some of today’s representatives of the Frankfurt School are among the most vicious denigrators of the ‘French thought’ (poststructuralism, deconstruction); and many ‘cultural Marxists’ are fiercely critical of identity politics, etc. Second, any positive reference to the Frankfurt School, or the ‘French thought’, was prohibited in socialist countries—where the authorities were much more open towards Anglo-Saxon analytic thought (as I remember from my own youth)—so to claim that both classic Marxism and its ‘cultural’ version were somehow controlled by the same central agent has to rely on the very suspicious notion of a hidden master who secretly pulls the strings." pages 18-19, Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, Burgis B., Hamilton C.B., McManus M. , Trejo M., John Hunt Publishing, 24 Apr 2020 - Political Science - 256 pages. Acousmana ( talk) 11:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Assuming you establish Zizek's credentials as an expert (I'm assuming you can but it hasn't been shown this far), I would suggest summarizing this as an attributed expert opinion in one or two sentences then including that full quote in a foot note. Springee ( talk) 11:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Anyway, I have finally found a good source on Zizek v. Peterson. [33] Newimpartial ( talk) 15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikiquote as a back door for POV pushing -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to know if these two sources could be considered reliable when making claims about Ahmose-Nefertari's ethnicity (or about the ethnicity of ancient Egyptians in general, the main topic of articles such as Ancient Egyptian race controversy and Black Egyptian hypothesis):

• Martin Bernal (1987), Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, ISBN 978-0813512778;
• Cheikh Anta Diop (1981), "Origin of the ancient Egyptians" in G. Mokhtar (ed.). General History of Africa II: Ancient Civilizations of Africa. Heinemann, California, UNESCO, ISBN 978-0-520-06697-7.

Thanks, Khruner ( talk) 13:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As the wikipedia article notes, Black Athena is considered fringe by mainstream Classicists and Egyptologists. Cheikh Anta Diop is a pan africanist. Neither work should be use as a source of facts about Ancient Egypt, but I could see them being used alongside secondary sources discussing tham as sources about the race controversy itself. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Times of India is shown as politically 'no consensus'. But I believe that in non-political matters, it should be graded as Huffpost, where the articles by contributors should be 'gu' and for editorial non-political mattters- 'gr'. Please comment.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

What does 'gr' and 'gu' mean? Pahlevun ( talk) 16:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I presume gr=generally reliable, and gu=generally unreliable. Grandpallama ( talk) 19:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would oppose this motion, at least as currently phrased. My primary exposure to ToI is going through their coverage of pop culture, and my overall impression is that this side of the publication is quite poor, with a lot of published content reading like promotional press releases. While I wouldn't consider them to be generally unreliable, neither would I consider them generally reliable, the articles need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• The previous ToI discussion was quite well attended. There would need to be a serious reason to overturn prior consensus. I agree with Rosguill that issues with pop culture coverage have also occurred. It may be useful for some content but first you have to check if it's pure PR. ( t · c) buidhe 01:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Times of India is a proof on Times of India's reliability, but I agree to the point in political matters. What I argue now is on non-political matters, which are published by the editorial staff, and there has been general consensus around India that they are reliable.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 04:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We need more reviews please-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 06:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I initially thought TOI as a reliable source, like most Indians. But after going through the Kashmir-related coverages, I found some smells of POV in the news outlet. The pop culture concerns raised by Rosguill are also true. Therefore, I rate "generally ureliable" in political and pop cultural coverages, and "generally unreliable" in other coverages. -- Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Times of India is generally reliable for factual news reporting, including political and entertainment news (provided they are part of the main newspaper). Traditionally, the Times of India, Hindustan Times and the Hindu have a large readership base and are generally respected. However, care must be taken to distinguish the news (Times of India) from the ETimes (entertainment/pop culture reports which often carry promotional content). Both are part of Indiatimes.com website which confuses editors sometimes. However, while TOI has news, ETimes is more like a web portal which carries entertainment/P3 related articles. Even the website for ETimes states "ETimes is an Entertainment, TV & Lifestyle industry's promotional website and carries advertorials and native advertising". The actual TOI can be accessed from [34] and the news articles can be differentiated from the ETimes articles. Another thing to be careful of is that the TOI website carries reader's blogs which should not be used as a reference for any content.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• What does Encyclopedia Britannica's article about journalism have to do with the reliability of the TOI? Regardless, I concur with Rosguill about unreliability in entertainment news and articles about film, music and other popular culture topics, and nothing seems to have changed since February to make the paper generally reliable for news. This does not appear to be a formal RfC, and no arguments have been given as to why the previous, fairly recent and very well attended RfC should be overturned. -- bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  I will concede that DreamLinker may have a point about "ETimes" coverage vs TOI coverage when it comes to entertainment news; I'd never really noticed the distinction before and can't make an off the cuff judgement about whether non-ETimes entertainment content has been of good quality./ _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Usually reliable for non-controversial topics: The Times of India (TOI) newspaper certainly has a pro-India bias in topics relating to Pakistan and China. However, bias does not imply unreliability. In fact, TOI is nowadays politically neutral and has a low story-selection bias. The bigger issue regarding TOI's reliability is improper/non-existent disclosure of paid content. However, please note that this issue is not limited to TOI but appears to be prevalent in most of the major news outlets of India in varying degrees. As a quick citation to bolster my argument, please note how easily both the CIA and KGB sponsored stories in Indian media on a massive scale during the cold war. So deeming TOI non-usable would make things difficult for Indian editors like me since it would censor a large number of useful reports whose reliability is otherwise unquestioned.—  Vaibhavafro  ^💬 13:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  As a side-note, TOI is so large that it cannot publish factually incorrect news without drawing attention/criticism.—  Vaibhavafro  ^💬 14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The present notion is 'Generally Reliable', for non-political contents. We need more reviews.-- Atlantis77177 ( talk) 05:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Atlantis77177: I understand that you are doing this in good faith, but please stop posting these repeated "tallying" comments, and "We need more reviews" (here and in other sections). First of all, this is not a vote. Then, editors reading this page are capable of making up their own minds about whether to weigh in or not, and as already observed, if you are actually looking to change consensus, you would need to start a new RfC. Even in an RfC, there is no "running tally" or ongoing evaluation – that happens at the end of the discussion. And since you were the one who raised the question and since you have clearly stated your opinion, you could not be the one to close the discussion and evaluate the consensus. (Again, this applies here and in other sections). It is perfectly fine for you to ask the question and give your opinions, and if you disagree with others' opinions it is also fine to discuss that, but otherwise please just allow the discussion to run its course. Thank you. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable I'm going through their website right now and I'm not seeing any extreme bias in either their political or non political articles. Flickotown ( talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• No reason why the last RfC needs to be overturned, the pro-government stance of the paper was throughly discussed. The Times of India also has a lot of issues with undisclosed paid promotions to be considered generally reliable due to the fact it results in non-independent coverage. The parent company Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd pioneered the commodification of news in India through this very paper. For reference, look at this report from the Press Council or this report from Reuters Institute. The only thing, I'd say is needed is that there should a disclaimer against using it for determining notability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable in many instances, at least. I've used TOI in articles about Ravi Shankar's family, his association with Beatle George Harrison, influence on Western music and '60s youth culture, etc, and have never found an issue with it as a source. Not to dismiss concerns raised above but I think, generally, people are often too quick to dismiss a source entirely when, in the main, it might be pretty innocuous and no worse than any other source. For political news, that could well be a different story. JG66 ( talk) 15:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Taiwan News reliable, or reliable enough to support the following claim on Antony Blinken?

He has expressed support for stronger ties with Taiwan.

This article would support that claim if it were an RS. The site claims that the paper has been around since 1949, but Taiwan News claims that there were some recent editorial controversies associated with pieces written by Keoni Everington, the author of the linked piece. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes they are. On the specific point here they aren’t the only ones saying that, you can upgrade the source to the WSJ [35] if you want to remove any possible BLP concern. The critique of the Taiwan News piece in New Bloom also uses misinformation instead of disinformation which is important for our purposes here, occasional misinformation is OK while no amount of disinformation is to be tolerated. If anyone has a source which says they published disinformation that would change the discussion entirely. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• New Bloom Magazine was not the only one to refute the Everington disinformation piece from early February. See The Tyee here. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, both. I went ahead and added the WSJ ref that Horse Eye's Back linked, thus obviating the need to cite TN in any event. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 01:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You are goig to need more than a repeat of the same accusation by two explicitly partisan sources if your goal is to deprecate the whole outlet. Flickotown ( talk) 08:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You are going to need more than your own word to describe The Tyee as explicitly partisan, or expect a lengthy block. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not my own words, that accusation is just your wild imagination running riot. It's an explicitly partisan outlet, it's right there on their "About Us" page (specifically, the subsections "These are The Tyee’s principles." and "A bit more background on The Tyee.") Don't know what your rambling about a block has to do with anything Flickotown ( talk) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Vague commitments to environmentalism (under the These are The Tyee’s principles) and initial funding by a labor-friendly financial institution may constitute an ideological leaning, but not a partisan one (as opposed to something such as the Daily Mirror which is widely regarded as pro-UK Labour Party). Again, you will need a WP:RS that claims something such as The Tyee has a pro-NDP slant, not your own assessment. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Dude, threatening someone with a block over their opinion is totally not ok. ( t · c) buidhe 01:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Tyee is explicitly ideological. The part about "not hedge fund owners" makes that clear enough. [36] Adoring nanny ( talk) 02:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Adoring nanny: Agreed. The Tyee also doesnt support the claim of disinformation, they use misinformation just like New Bloom. The unsupported juxtaposition of “disinformation” with the author's name would appear to violate our WP:BLP policy. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• The outlet itself reliable though probably not reliable enough for a BLP. Flickotown ( talk) 08:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WonderHowTo is a site that is often used for citations, alongside some of its subsidiaries like Gadget Hacks. For example, it's used as a source on Google Pixel - particularly the article https://android.gadgethacks.com/news/its-official-pixel-phones-from-google-store-will-be-rootable-with-unlockable-bootloaders-0174285/. An example of a Gadget Hacks source is on iPhone SE (2nd generation) - https://ios.gadgethacks.com/news/apples-ios-13-4-1-fixes-facetime-bug-now-available-for-2020-iphone-se-0284197/. Should this be considered reliable for tech news? I searched and did not see it posted here before? Gadget Hacks claims to have an editorial team - https://www.gadgethacks.com/about/ - and so does WonderHowTo - https://www.wonderhowto.com/about/ - with these being essentially the same teams (lots of crossover). I personally haven't seen evidence that these sources are unreliable. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 01:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Does NASDAQ News run anything that isn't a reprint? I see crypto advocates linking NASDAQ News articles repeatedly, saying it's NASDAQ (the stock exchange) so it's reliable - but as far as I can tell, their news page is literally entirely reprints, with an unhealthy fondness for bottom-of-the-barrel crypto blogs. Do they do any reporting as a news source? Is there an "about" on what they think they're doing editorially? Is there some suitable statement to put in WP:RSP? - David Gerard ( talk) 00:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The stuff under the "Trending Topics" labelled "Expert", appears to not be a reprint, such as this original analysis by NASDAQ Chief Economist Phil Mackintosh, but overall I agree that NASDAQ republishes loads of questionable reprints with no editoral oversight, and their reliability should not be considered to have been enhanced by being reposted by NASDAQ. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 11:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a similar impression. I went to check just in case they have changed, but I see that dozens of publications for the last few days are reprints from CoinDesk. And I don't see any statements about editorial practices in their "About" section. Does not instill confidence at all. Retimuko ( talk) 18:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking through the original content published by NASDAQ on the page, would that be usable? It's a corporate blog, sort of, OTOH these are also arguably experts and aren't just writing to promote NASDAQ (if at all) but to inform ... but that's at a fairly quick glance - David Gerard ( talk) 19:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

While original content might in some cases be usable as expert opinion, most of the time it's going to be transitory insights that are unlikely to be useful for an encyclopedia. As for the reprinted material (i.e., almost all of it), my understanding is that Nasdaq seeks to be comprehensive and does not ordinarily apply editorial scrutiny. I would think that all such materials would inherit the reliability of the source, and the preferred citation normally would be to the source. John M Baker ( talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

yeah, seems likely. Yes, the source material should be used by preference. (Similar issue with Yahoo News reprints - the original stuff is an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, but the reprints include all manner of rubbish.)

nasdaq.com/articles/ has 118 usages in article space - David Gerard ( talk) 22:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I mostly come across this content in the crypto articles, and in general it is always a reprint. I think it is unreliable. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I notice there is no discussion about this source, so I thought that I would bring it up. The NBN describes itself as "a consortium of author-interview podcast channels dedicated to raising the level of public discourse by introducing scholars and other serious writers to a wide public via new media." [37] The websites host interviews of authors of "serious books" by academics, accompanied by a brief text review. For example In Praise of Blood, a book about war crimes is reviewed [38] by Jeff Bachman, who is not quite notable but did write one and edit one book, both published by Routledge, on genocide and human rights. Are the reviews a reliable source to cite with attribution in the reception section of books? ( t · c) buidhe 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems to have similar editorial oversight as book reviews in other mediums (such as H-Net), and the reviewers/hosts are subject matter experts so their opinions are likely to be WP:DUE. ( t · c) buidhe 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Diverting position: The website host is not an expert on the subject of the book (genocide in Rwanda). His short introduction of the interview on the webpage is not a review but a very short summary of promotional materials. The dispute is not about whether the host is an expert on human rights or other subjects but whether he is a reliable source in this specific case. His information is not different from other non-experts already quoted and therefore doesn't add any useful information. Saflieni ( talk) 13:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC) See discussion on Talk:In Praise of Blood
  • Actually, Bachman "is especially interested in the misuse of the law as a political tool through its selective application and enforcement". [39] That's exactly what the book is about, as well as Rwandan history. Therefore I consider his attributed opinion to be WP:DUE. ( t · c) buidhe 14:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Why do you keep answering your own questions, Buidhe? And why do you quarrel about a book you haven't read? Bachman's interests have no relationship with the subject at hand. His brief introduction to the interview is not a book review. To suggest otherwise is misleading, to put it mildly, especially since you can't seem to let it go. Saflieni ( talk) 11:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources#Proposed_clarification_of_deprecated_sources_guidelines. I've flagged this notice there too - David Gerard ( talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for linking it here. I don't think it's a fair summary of the proposed change though. I am for removing deprecated sources from articles. I believe that for some sources mass removal of links does more harm than good (for example it makes it harder to find a good source instead) and the editors should be encouraged to replace sources with reliable ones. @ David Gerard: do you mind if I change the section name to Discussion on mass removals of deprecated sources?

Would be happy to hear community feedback on this and read previous discussions. Alaexis _¿question? 20:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess it can be a little disconcerting to have a ref removed all of a sudden, it probably won't matter that much if there are additional refs at the given point. But if there are not, the very least should be a cn placement so that an alternative sourcing, if it exists, can be found. It could be that the material itself needs to go and no result from a cn will likely lead to that eventually. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator pointed me at this ( https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VNQmuwEACAAJ&dq=The+Crusades:+An+Encylopedia+Allan+V+Murray&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJls_f5aLtAhVTXsAKHdScD-sQ6AEwAnoECAEQAg) in a debate at Talk:Crusades#RFC_on_the_naming_of_articles_within_the_Crusade_topic. I have since been using it for articles around the Crusades topic. Murray ( https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/history/staff/1010/dr-alan-v-murray) is a specialist academic at the University of Leeds. The Editorial advisory board included Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jean Richard (historian) and Jonathan Riley-Smith. All the contributors were practicing academics. To me this looks a nailed on WP:RS. The issue is there is an editor who keeps tagging its usage at Crusader States as ^{non-tertiary source needed}. None of the times it has been used as a source is particularly contentious so the sole reason seems to be that it has Encylopedia in the title. Other tertiary sources are used in the article without objection. Now am I going mad on this, please advise on whether this is a relaible source, I can see no reason to object? Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 13:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Riley-Smith especially is a Premier League level Crusade expert and has been for a generation or more. I'd say this easily reaches the level of RS. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Norfolkbigfish: and @ Dweller: nobody has questioned that the encyclopedia is a reliable source. What I say that secondary sources are preferred to tertiary sources ( WP:PSTS). I also say that if a sentence verified by the encyclopedia contradicts secondary sources (some of them also cited in the article), we cannot ignore this PoV issue. Borsoka ( talk) 16:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO who wrote the essay and what it says is more important than where it was published or in what genre (monograph, encyclopedia, journal etc). WP:PSTS says use common sense (common sense is policy above policy ie. no policy required). -- Green C 17:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The answer to who wrote the essay is a number of reputable/leading academics all active in the field, many of which are also cited in the articles for their other work Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 18:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this a traditional encyclopedia with multiple authors/contributors and one or more editors or is this one person's comprehensive work which they chose to title as an encyclopedia? If the former then I think it would be a tertiary work, if the latter then it would be a secondary work. Springee ( talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It is former, there are over a thousand articles, it would be a lifetimes work for some poor soul. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 18:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Some scholarly encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos) are actually secondary sources since they cite primary sources (archives, etc.). An encyclopedia written by experts is actually the best source IMO, since reliable secondary sources may be giving a minority view but encyclopedias usually strive for a consensus version. ( t · c) buidhe 01:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Buidhe: I fully agree with your above remarks: well-edited encyclopedias strives for a consensus and I regularly refer to encyclopedias when editing articles. 'The Crusades [4 Volumes]: An Encyclopedia (edited by Alan V. Murray) is without doubt one of the best encyclopedias about the crusades and it is the best source if there is a debate about scholarly consensus. In this case, there is no debate about scholarly consensus. Secondary sources already cited in the article provide a consensual picture, so we do not need to ignore WP's preference for secondary sources and introduce new and new articles from the encyclopedia. In this specific case, further problem arise from the fact that the sentences allegedly verified by articles from the encyclopedia contradict secondary books written by the articles' authors. Borsoka ( talk) 02:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to prefer secondary sources to tertiary ones when they are of equal reliability. I don't see any wording in WP:PSTS that would encourage this use of cleanup tags or source replacement. Of course, if you confirm the info in another reliable source, it never hurts to have 2 citations for one fact. ( t · c) buidhe 02:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." For the time being, references to tertiary sources are replacing references to secondary sources in the article, although there is no neutrality issue or debate about scholarly consensus. Borsoka ( talk) 02:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There may be "neutrality issue or debate about scholarly consensus" at present. But there's no way to know if content may be challenged in future. That's why it's best to cite the scholarly tertiary source for evidence that the interpretation is the majority view. ( t · c) buidhe 12:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think our policy states that tertiary and primary sources should be used "to a lesser extent" than secondary sources? Why do you think that replacing references to secondary sources with references to tertiary sources is in line with our policy? Do we want to transform WP into a large collection of slightly (and sometimes incorrectly) paraphrased texts from encyclopedias? Please remember paraphrasing encyclopedia's articles is the easiest way to write a GA or a FA, because one does not need to read lengthy texts from books. I emphasize tertiary sources could and should be used in specific cases, but we cannot base our articles either on primary or on tertiary sources. Borsoka ( talk) 13:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO the wording of the policy either makes no sense, or the framers were thinking of low-quality tertiary sources like Encyclopedia Brittanica. As for the article, it also cites plenty of secondary sources so it's hard to understand the complaint. Dogmatic adherence to a particular interpretation of some policy (which doesn't seem to be widely shared) above common sense and the overarching goal of improving the encyclopedia is not recommended. ( t · c) buidhe 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Common sense and our overarching goal of improving the encyclopedia suggest that editors should not base articles primarily on tertiary (or primary) sources. We are not here to clone existing encyclopedias (or to present the results of our research). @ Diannaa: sorry for pinging you, but according to my experiences, you are an editor with a deep knowledge of copyright issues. I am asking you to comment on the use of encyclopedia articles from a copyright perspective. My concern is that high-quality encyclopedia articles contain a concise text which is based on the deep study of specific secondary sources and the careful consolidation of their core texts. An editor who bases a WP article exclusively on an encyclopedic article can change some words or modify their sequence, but cannot change the core of the cited article fundamentally. Similarly, an editor who explains a term in a WP article using exclusively an encyclopedic article cannot modify the essence of the original article. Consequently, such editors' work can hardly meet the minimal standards of originality. In contrast, when using multiple secondary sources and consolidating their texts, editors obviously create a new work. Thank you for your time and thoughts. Borsoka ( talk) 18:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's impossible to use an encyclopedia as a source without plagiarising it. That seems a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, in my opinion it's not a good idea to rely solely on one source (whether secondary or tertiary) when writing an article, particularly if the intention is to nominate for GA or FA at some point. My preference is to have at least 3 good source books, secondary sources only, to ensure a neutral POV and reassure myself that the material I am adding is as accurate as can be. — Diannaa ( talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am less optimistic about plagiarism, but I agree that we can avoid it through the use of multiple sources. Borsoka ( talk) 02:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What about the following summary? (Sorry, as it is obvious, I am not a native speaker.) 1. WP recommends the use of secondary sources instead of tertiary sources. 2. Editors are required to verify facts primarily with references to secondary sources. Tertiary sources can particularly be used if high-quality secondary sources are unavailable or contradict each other. 3. Articles or article sections cannot be based exclusively on tertiary sources if high-quality secondary sources abound. 4. Whether an encyclopedia is a secondary or a tertiary source can be decided on a case by case basis. Borsoka ( talk) 02:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The question was whether this work was a reputable work that could be used on the topics around crusades, crusading and the crusader States. If I might be so bold the consensus would appear to be yes. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 08:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Like some other editors above, I disagree with the idea that secondary sources should always be preferred over tertiary sources but this is not an appropriate venue for that discussion. Discussion about the relative weight of this specific source compared to other available, reliable sources should take place in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo ( talk) 08:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the question was raised about an issue that was never debated: the book is a reputable source, without doubt. I have never questioned its reputability. I also disagree with the idea that secondary sources should always be preferred over tertiary sources: neither our policy nor my above summary say this. Borsoka ( talk) 14:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This WP search [40] gives us 600+ results for arlingtoncemetery.net. From what I see, the website is user-generated. And other than the website URL and e-mail address I see nothing about who publishes the website. It seems that people can e-mail info to the webmaster, but we can't see how the info is vetted. MOREOVER the url is not secure/unsafe. And a "https://" does not work on it. I recommend that we add it to WP:RSP. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. arlingtoncemetery.net is a self-published website. The welcome page states near the bottom: "This is a privately owned and maintained, not-for-profit, website which is supported privately. As such, it has no affiliation whatsoever with the United States Government or the United States Army. Accordingly, the content here is solely the responsibility of the Webmaster. This Site Is (c) Michael Robert Patterson 1994- 2013, Except Where Noted." The website contains a description of Michael Robert Patterson, which does not claim that he is a subject-matter expert. Also, much of the content on the website is copied and pasted from other sources (e.g. newspapers); those pages are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia per WP:COPYLINK. arlingtoncemetery.net might be useful for research, but it is not a reliable source for direct citations.

  I do have to note that the lack of HTTPS on the website, although less than ideal for web security, does not affect the website's reliability for Wikipedia's purposes. —  Newslinger  talk 09:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's a self-published source. There are better sources. The website does a fairly good job at indicating where it is getting its information. It appears with many of the names to provide a newspaper obituary. Use the obituary given and do a newspaper archive search, and then cite the newspaper in which you have confirmed the material. If you want to confirm just that the individual is buried in Arlington cemetery, use the find a grave feature of the official government website. I'm not sure how people want to give credit to Michael Patterson for his original research in finding the obituaries and compiling all the material, but it is kind of important. It's not a copyright violation, however, it can be considered plagiarism by some academics. I do think that the replacement of the citations should be done properly. Blind stripping of war veteran material from biographies is a sensitive topic in many countries around the world. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 06:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations. As I have been culling arlingtoncemetery.net citations from WP I observe that very few are worthwhile in terms of reader helpfulness. The webpages sometimes simply repeat news stories without attribution. When there is attribution it is often vague, hence the pages do not serve to WP:V the info. (And as I progress in this effort I shall keep your admonition about blind stripping in mind.) In any case, is this a site that should go onto the WP:RSP? Strike out because this isn't a frequently discussed source. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. I have been trying to make changes in Udal of Mahoba by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did this book consider reliable source for making changes.

Book:- Uttar Pradesh Volume 7 of Chib, Sukhdev Singh Volume 7 of This beautiful India, Sukhdev Singh Chib

Author:- Sukhdev Singh Chib

Publisher:- Light & Life Publishers

Page.no.:- page no.137 [41]

The article Udal of Mahoba currently includes the text

They were of mixed Ahir and Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan.

And I want to change it to

"They were of Rajput descent and belonged to the Banaphar clan of Rajputs"

so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes.

Here [42] is a more accessible version. I'd say no, but it's possible it could be used to insert something like "Some sources do not mention mixed Ahir and Rajput descent." Maybe. The University of Chicago Press source in the article is, from the WP-POV, a good one, and there is no WP-good reason to exclude what it says, so my advice is to give up on that particular point, you've been WP:Beating a dead horse long enough. However, this is a discussion for Talk:Udal of Mahoba. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång How did the debate end when everyone asked me to provide a better source for what I have right now and I was away from this problem for some time because I had some important work. Sumit banaphar ( talk) 08:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what debate you mean. Perhaps you can find it through your edithistory. [43] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the publisher and the author. The publisher Light & Life appears to be a religious service related to the Greek Orthodox Church, unclear what their editorial screening is like but that's not an academic publication. The author Sukhdev Singh Chib seems to be a professor of geography at the University of Jammu which might make it reliable for geography being a subject matter expert but not for history or mythology. The book in any case appears to be primarily a geography book and is likely inaccurate for this particular piece of information. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The latest discussion of reasons deprecated sources aren't deprecated is at Talk:Next Irish general election - David Gerard ( talk) 20:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Everything owned by Daily Mail and General Trust and/or DMG Media is not to be trusted. This includes Daily Mail TV]]. [44] Those who try to read the tea leaves and decide that there are areas where they don't lie are on a fool's errand. Again and again, as soon as they take a guess about areas wher TDM is reliable, TDM publishes fabrications in that area.

I would suggest an exception for Euromoney Institutional Investor publications as long as they are only 49% owned. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What about the i? I think that it is still factually accurate even if it has gone down hill. As for the Irish and Scottish editions, yes, defiantly. They show the same shoddy practices as the DM and MoS. El komodos drago ( talk to me) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What about This is Money? Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 21:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

From the site: All about This Is Money Welcome to This is Money, the award-winning financial website and money section of the MailOnline. MailOnline is specifically covered by WP:DAILYMAIL. You keep asking this question, and the answer keeps being that they literally proclaim themselves part of the same thing - David Gerard ( talk) 22:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This might need more discussion. The explicit statement of the RfC that it's scope was limited to UK Daily Mail can not be easily dismissed. It may be a moot question as other secondary sources have been found for the disputed content. Spudlace ( talk) 06:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion HAS been had, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and no matter what loopholes partisans try to find, the result has been the same. This horse? It is well and truly dead. -- Calton | Talk 06:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

How reliable is this site? I have seen it in citations of various Indian articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DEFCON5 ( talk • contribs) 5:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

On a brief search of the cite, it looks reliable enough for a stub article. Please be weary that this is not a full assessment of the full site. The content looks like it is neutral and informative that stays on topic and is a third-party source. Heart ^(talk) 05:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable at best. Janata ka Reporter accepts contributor submission, which do undergo editorial oversight but I'd advise against using it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Scroll.in (a digital news website) reliable for a historical article such as Bengal Sultanate? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 16:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's one older discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Scroll,_OpIndia,_The_Wire,_The_Quint,_The_Print,_DailyO,_postcardnews,_rightlog_etc.. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely. You should be able to find much better sources on such a topic. ( t · c) buidhe 06:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Preference should be given to scholarly sources over news publications which are generally less reliable on history and can reproduce popular misconceptions. That said, Scroll.in from what I have seen has much better standards compared to most other Indian news outlets when it comes to fact-checking. They also occasionally bring in subject matter experts which should be usable as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This only applies to their original reporting, by the way. Since they also have sponsored content and a lot of syndicated material which are properly disclosed and hence can and should be avoided in case of the former and its reliability determined on the basis of the original source in case of the latter. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the following reliably sourced information?

Hassanpour, Amir (2005), Shelton, Dinah L. (ed.), "Kurds", Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 632–637, The majority live in Kurdistan, a borderless homeland whose territory is divided among the neighboring countries of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. … The dismantling of the Ottoman empire in World War I led to the division of its Kurdish region and the incorporation of that territory into the newly created states of Iraq (under British occupation and mandate, 1918–1932), Syria (under French occupation and mandate, 1918–1946), and Turkey (Republic of Turkey since 1923). The formation of these modern nation-states entailed the forced assimilation of the Kurds into the official or dominant national languages and cultures: Turkish (Turkey), Persian (Iran), and Arabic (Syria, and, in a more limited scope, Iraq).

Or is it more accurate to dismiss the entire encyclopaedia entry in the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity by claiming "Amir Hassanpour is a kurdish writer. So its a kurdish pov" as has been alleged. The Encyclopedia is published by Macmillan Reference. All other reliable sources state identical information. For example the Oxford English Dictionary:

Kurdistan, n. (Kurdish Kurdistan, lit. 'land of the Kurds'), the name of any of various (current or historical) regions inhabited by Kurdish people, now chiefly located in parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. The place name is attested in English contexts from at least the 16th cent. (initially as Curdistan).

GPinkerton ( talk) 15:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable Without commenting on any specific content dispute in any specific article, I believe the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity is a WP:RS. It is published by a mainstream publisher meaning it has a gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be held legally liable for its publications, the author and editor are both acknowledged experts in their field, and the volume has been reviewed in a scholarly journal [45] without serious issues about its veracity being raised. Chetsford ( talk) 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The source is reliable, but what context was it used in? The only thing I see here that would require attribution to the author is the last sentence, where Iraq is widely considered by reliable sources to have been the most extreme case of persecution of the Kurds, I am not seeing the logic for an internationally recognized genocide being described as a "more limited scope". It may even be a fringe claim, or possibly just because the source was quoted out of context. Spudlace ( talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    That sentence is talking about forced assimilation; the Anfal genocide was a case of mass murder, which is a bit different. ( t · c) buidhe 06:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    Buidhe, the forced assimilation isn't the bit being disputed at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    Spudlace, It's just the idea that Kurdistan is split between four countries that's at issue. There seems to be an idea that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist or did not exist at the time of partition. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

    • We don't throw out biased sources, and certainly not on the basis of the author's ethnicity. The source is reliable for facts, and for other subjective opinions that can't be stated in Wikivoicem, it is a scholar's opinion and can be used with attribution. Spudlace ( talk) 07:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable for the reasons stated above. But, not all books published by Macmillian (if the authors are not experts) would be RS for mass atrocities IMO, I try to use peer-reviewed sources wherever possible. ( t · c) buidhe 23:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable - As noted above, the author was a notable, prominent, subject matter expert. Adding to the review linked by Chetsford, here are two more – 2 and 3 – all of which indicate that the source is a solid reference work. Mr rnddude ( talk) 00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

From Andy Ngo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

On May 1, 2019, Ngo attended demonstrations and counter protests in Portland associated with International Workers Day or May Day. ^{[1] [2]} He reported being punched and blasted with pepper spray while filming two separate May Day events. ^[2]

In August 2019, a video of Ngo surfaced where he is seen laughing, while standing next to the members of the far-right group Patriot Prayer as they plan an attack on anti-fascist patrons at Cider Riot following the May Day protests. ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]} He later followed the group to the bar where they attacked the patrons. The video is part of the court documents in the ongoing lawsuit against Patriot Prayer members for causing the riot. One of the victims of the attack was knocked unconscious with a baton and suffered a broken vertebra—Ngo later posted a video of her being attacked and identified her online. ^[7] Portland Mercury quoted an undercover antifascist embedded in Patriot Prayer saying that Ngo has an "understanding" with the far-right group, that the group "protects him and he protects them". ^[8]

It seems to me that The Oregonaian and Portland Mercury are valid sources here, but The Daily Beast, Vice News, The Daily Dot, Inquisitr and Jewish Currents? I don't think we should be using those. What's the view here in respect of controversial content? Guy ( help! - typo?) 14:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion Guy. I think the Portland Mercury is a poor source given the specific content comes from a wp:NEWSBLOG. However, it was re-reported by others so, even if NEWSBLOG applies coverage by others give's weight to mentioning the blogtown commentary. My bigger concern is that what we really have is limited hard facts (Ngo is visible in the video and clearly near the PP member, the person who provided the video makes claims X, Y and Z) plus commentary (Ngo did X in response to..., Ngo could hear Y). Several other sources offer similar descriptions of what their authors say they saw in the video. At the same time Reason ran an article which was critical of the analysis performed by these sources [ [46]]. Reason is again a mix of commentary (like the other sources the author watches the video then assesses what he sees) and factual reporting (reaching out to both Ngo and the PM for comments/confirmation of facts). I'm generally OK keeping the sources like The Daily Beast and Vice News but I think we need to also offer Reason even if with less WEIGHT. I'm less comfortable with the Daily Dot as this isn't basic internet culture. I recall previous discussions being critical of Inquisitr but I don'r recall the disposition to Jewish Currents. Do they offer anything beyond repeats of the comments of other sources? ( edit conflict) A lot of editors felt this general text was critical for inclusion in the Ngo article (in particular the discussion of the video was, per a recent RfC, required to be in the article lead). I think the weaker sources could be trimmed without cutting text from the article. Springee ( talk) 14:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, we say at RS/P: "The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" "The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article" and "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications". I don't quite see what would be wrong with Jewish Currents, they relaunched as what appears to be a serious magazine with Peter Beinart as their editor-at-large. What exactly is the problem with Jewish Currents? Vexations ( talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, I am not a huge fan of tabloidish sources, which Daily Beast and Vice both are IMO. None of these sources seem to have much in the way of gravitas. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, well, I prefer serious sources over tabloid-y sources too, but Jewish Current seems to be a bit more serious than the others, not less. Vexations ( talk) 16:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vexations, probably, yes. But it's recently undergone a serious change, and that probably colours my view of it (it was previously distinctly lightweight). Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just trying to find if anyone else reported on this brings up a source from Reason that should be included as well [47] which criticizes how those sources are describing the video itself and includes Reason's responses from Ngo. Also Rolling Stone.

But at least Daily Beast and Vice are generally reliable sources, and going by these sources, the only thing I would say is they should be named here, eg "Ngo is seen in the video to be alongside the Proud Boys, according to the Daily Beast and Vice". -- Masem ( t) 14:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem Neither the Daily Beast nor Vice refer to the Proud Boys, rather they identify Patriot Prayer, the local pacific northwest group situated in Vancouver, WA. There are similarities, certainly, but they are distinct groups with seperate leaders. Kind Regards, Cedar777 ( talk) 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I am getting the cases here confused. Yes, we're talking the video of Ngo seen with Patriot Prayer that led to his dismissal from Quillette. -- Masem ( t) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Reason is also outside the "green box of joy" on the Ad Fontes chart (gets the same reliability rating as Sputnik). The problem with biased sources is that no partisan source is going to be anything other than partisan about Andy Ngo. His mission to attack Antifa and his apparent fondness for actual fascists make him a polarising figure, which is why I think we should stick to the most reliable and least biased sources rather than casting around for sources to "balance" low quality partisan sources on one side or the other. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The way this is being presented (what the video presents) is only apparently coming from lower quality sources. But the video seems important to be describing. That a video exists that includes Ngo with PBs in the hours before the May incident does not seem to be in doubt (that's coming from the Portland paper), what is in question is exactly what Ngo was actually doing in it. Which is why falling back to attributing by name those describing Ngo's "laughing" helps to set that that's an opinion of those sources, and the Reason article, specific quoting Ngo, is Ngo's claims against what Daily Beast et al were asserting he was doing. A they-said, he-said situation that we're not saying who was right or wrong. Perhaps the phrasing order in the sentence is weird, as the video should be explained to be part of the expose from the Portland paper, and then go on to explain the interpretation of it, all with attribution from that point on. -- Masem ( t) 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I tend to agree, and it should probably be excluded altogether. Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

See the (current) last comment in this thread that I made (17:07, 24 November 2020), in which this section is actually duplicative of the Quillette dismissal section. There are parts of this to document that are directly tied to his dismissal, and which as a PUBLICFIGURE, we should document fairly within BLP concerns, but they may already be documented there in the dismissal section. -- Masem ( t) 18:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think we need to be careful about the "green box of joy". Reason is well within what Adfonts considers to be a "good" source and scores similar accuracy and less bias than the Huffington Post. The chart also puts Epoch Times (deprecated I believe) as more reliable and less biased than generally allowed sources like Vanity Fair, Daily Beast, and Salon. Springee ( talk) 15:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Springee, sure, it's a pointer, not an authority. Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The sources are fine, there do appear to be issues with the text... For instance "an attack on anti-fascist patrons at Cider Riot” fails verification, I can see sources which say the bar is affiliated with antifa but the ones I’ve looked at so far havent explicitly described the patrons as such. (Update: I don't think we should be using the article from the Portland Mercury’s Blogtown vertical, thank you to Springee for pointing that out to me) Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be better to replete the claims that the bar is popular with anti-fascist patrons and separately that there was an attack on the patrons. I'm not overly happy with the term "attack" vs "brawl" (used by the Portland liquor commission and a number of sources). [warning OR here] In watching the videos of the event it appears the PP showed up both sides talked a lot of trash then finally one side or the other almost timidly threw something or sprayed pepper spray. This wasn't something where group A sees group B and immediately starts swinging. Springee ( talk) 15:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see "the bar is popular with anti-fascist patrons” in the sources either, which one you pulling it from? I see that the bar is associated with antifa but I don’t see blanket claims made about their patrons (it seems to be in most aspects an ordinary bar, I’m not sure blanket claims about its patrons even could be made). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall as this was from memory. However, a number of sources support the claim (based on quick web search). These say the brawl involved antifa or Rose City Antifa [ [48]], [ [49]]. This article just says antifa friendly [ [50]]. Regardless, your caution with phrasing is prudent. Springee ( talk) 16:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I see "pub patrons, possibly with ties to the antifa.” from OPB and "left-wing patrons at the pub,” and "A number of anti-fascist, or antifa, activists were at the pub on May 1” from Oregon live. Neither of those to me support the claim. I think we need to stick to descriptions of the business’ affiliation and leave broad statements about the patrons out entirely. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back The Cider Riot article uses the Oregonian as a source for this connection. The Oregonian described Cider Riot as a "gathering place for antifascists, anarchists and other leftists." Buzzfeed's article about Ngo also mentions the Cider Riot by stating "Before I arrived in Portland, he suggested that it might be good for my story to go get a drink with him at Cider Riot, a far-left hangout." This point really does not seem to be disputed by any source, as there was long standing knowledge that the cider house had many patrons who identified as anti-fascist. This is exactly why it is so provocative that Patriot Prayer decided to gather w/ weapons and approach Cider Riot - well after the conclusion of a long day of public events (with May Day demonstrators and counter protesters). Kind Regards, Cedar777 ( talk) 22:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The "Reason" (gigglesnortlaugh) article is from their "media criticism" section, which is editorial content. Not reliable in any way, shape, or form. IHateAccounts ( talk) 16:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah the Reason article is a joke... But as far as I can tell no one is seriously suggesting we use it. Also perhaps you meant to put this comment somewhere else? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The only use of the Reason article is to capture the quoted Ngo's claims of what he was doing to counter the claims of what Daily Beast/Vice are saying (a BLP/NPOV requirement) We don't have to describe the "media got it wrong" angle the author presents. -- Masem ( t) 16:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem called it "a source from Reason that should be included as well" [51]. I felt I should check and from everything I see and remember Reason is somewhere below Sputnik or Epoch Times in terms of reliability. Reading the last RFC, the arguments against it are far more compelling [52] given "Reason"'s connections to holocaust denial. IHateAccounts ( talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I will recant the need to include the Reason's writer's statements for this, since I can't find anyone else claiming that the "media was wrong" about the video and that it is an op-ed more than the other pieces. But what did strike me were Ngo's statements quoted in that which can't be ignored. While Reason is a source that should be very carefully used if used for facts in politically charged articles like this, using it to source Ngo's counterclaims is perfectly fine and actually required. But again, I recant what I said earlier and don't think any MORE of that Reason article is needed. -- Masem ( t) 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Another issue with this article is the subject is notable enough to get some attention but not notable enough to really get detailed scrutiny from all sides. Their are plenty of examples of the media getting things wrong but since only a few stories cover it we don't have a bunch of articles saying "this isn't right". In this case Reason decided gap between the hard evidence and was was reported was significant enough to mention. Springee ( talk) 16:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Even if your gut tells you the media is getting this wrong, that doesn't change our WP:RS policy; there's absolutely enough coverage for us to reflect the overall consensus of reliable sources. In fact, saying "well, yes, but I think the reliable sources are getting it wrong" is an appeal to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - an admission that the perspective you want the article to cover is not citeable and does not accurately reflect mainstream coverage. Arguing that we should put our thumb on the scale and use a source we otherwise would not based on your personal gut feeling that the media has not portrayed this subject the way you would prefer is obviously not reasonable. If you think the media is getting things wrong, the thing to do is send in letters requesting corrections, or to wait to see if Soave's opinion is covered in more fact-based reporting. (Also, I don't agree that this hasn't gotten much coverage - there are eight sources above for this relatively narrow aspect of the topic; they vary in quality, but some are quite good. There's no actual reason to think they got it wrong or made mistakes outside of your personal gut reaction.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please review the sources. Of the 8 citations, both Oregonian links don't mention the video (one is from before the video) and Blogtown is a news blog for an alternative new weekly. You are concerned about bias [ [53]] but are these unbiased, mainstream sources? Removing Blogtown and the two Oregonian articles which do not discuss the video we are left with The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, The Inquisitr, Vice News and The Jewish Currents. Not exactly mainstream. Are you claiming that analysis of the video by sites like the Daily Beast are better than Reason because Reason is biased? Let's turn to the Adfontes media chart[ [54]]. Reason is rated rather squarely in the analysis end of things and scores a 9.9 for bias and 37.6 for reliability (per the Adfontes above 32 is "generally good"). That puts it as less biased than CNN, NY Mag and Rolling Stones. So where does The Daily Beast sit? 35.3A, -18.6B. So DB is a bit less accurate but nearly 2x the bias score. Vice is 39.5, -13.8. So a bit better on accuracy but again a lot more biased. (Note that the direct link here Reason as 38.27, 4.12 [ [55]]) I'm not suggesting we say Reason's account is the correct one but we have 5 RSs on one side (6 if you include Blogtown) and Reason on the other. This isn't fringe so much as a question of weight.

You suggest I want to change the RS guideline. Do you think we were following RS by citing Blogtown? The information related to Ngo and the video come from essentially three places. We have the video itself which objectively only proves that Ngo was near PP members. We have the testimony of "Ben" who is a "a self-described “everyday anti-fascist,”". I'm sure we would treat Ben as unbiased and 100% objective. Finally we have various sources saying what they think the video shows (or saying Blogtown said it shows X). That is analysis which is the same thing Reason did. The best you have is the claim that Reason is just an op-ed... even though Reason actually did reporting by contacting people. Did Daily Dot do any actual reporting or did they just repeat what Blogtown said. Wasn't the Daily Beast doing analysis/speculation when it suggested Ngo was fired because the video came out? Perhaps you can tell us when these things are fact based reporting vs Op-Ed when neither claims to be Op-Ed. Fortunately, Masem is showing a level head here and asking the better question, why are we going into such detail given the quality of the sources? Springee ( talk) 03:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Springee, Aquillion says it so much better than I do. We should generally mirror what's happening in RS, including when they get it wrong. We cannot know they are getting it wrong until we are informed, after the fact, by RS, not info from unreliable ones. If something changes, we can always change it here. To do otherwise, because we think they are wrong, would be substituting our own OR, wishful thinking, RGW's thinking, crystal ball thinking for dependence on RS, a phenomenon we see all the time with editors who depend on unreliable sources. They don't provide any sources to back hunches, for obvious reasons, unless they are newbies. So if our hunches tell us RS are getting it wrong, our hunches are likely being informed by bad sources. OTOH, if there is disagreement among RS, that's a different matter, and those hunches will be argued by providing those RS. It's okay to get hunches from RS, but not from unreliable ones. -- Valjean ( talk) 05:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I have assumed part of my argument was clear. I don't see that your comments reflect what I'm arguing and the suggestion that this is a gut thing is very wrong. To be clear, I'm not stating the Daily Beast et al are wrong or that their claims are not adequately supported. I'm saying the counter arguments made by Reason are sufficiently reliable to be included as a minority POV. Reason does say the other sources aren't adequately supporting their claims. Reason is a RS. Since it is just one source we can't say "Daily Beast is wrong because Reason says X". However, what we now have is sources that disagree so we can present it as a dissenting POV. I understand that some editors say Reason is an op-ed thus not reliable while the Daily Beast is a news story thus reliable but on what grounds? Neither is listed as "Op-Ed", the sort of thing where the publisher says "the views and opinions don't reflect that of the editorial staff etc". Both contain a mix of fact reporting and interpretation/analysis. It is 100% interpretation to suggest Ngo was fired from Quillette because of this video yet we choose to allow that content. Interpreting what Ngo is doing/hearing during the video is analysis. So my question has been, why would we treat The Daily Beast's interpretation differently vs Reason? Some argue Reason is biased but at least Adfonts says Reason is less biased than The Daily Beast. Aquillion's argument avoids addressing this point and falls back on a view that one source(s) is branded reliable while the other isn't but that just isn't true. My argument isn't based on a hunch, it's based on NPOV saying we should include minority views even if they aren't given equal weight. Still, Masem's alternative suggestion nicely avoids this issue and makes a lot of sense. Springee ( talk) 06:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Reason's assessment of what the video shows is just as valid as the other sources. That the video exists and shows Ngo is not a disputed fact. It is disputed that Ngo overheard and thus was aware of plans to attack Cider Riot. All the sources are basically watching the video and trying to decide what they think Ngo was doing/listening to. That is analysis/commentary, not factual reporting. That they came to different conclusions is significant. Springee ( talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As you say the Reason article is "is analysis/commentary, not factual reporting.” Since Ngo is a living person thats not gonna fly, we have to be strict in our adherence to WP:BLP no matter what our opinion of him may be. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reason is not accusing Ngo of wrongdoing or similar. Other sources who are doing similar commentary/analysis are accusing Ngo of wrongdoing (ie knowingly hiding foreknowledge of a crime). Why are we less critical of their commentary/analysis? Part of what we are dealing with here is the problematic blend of factual reporting (video from this day showing Ngo in same shots as PP members, "under cover antifa member "Ben" saying X") and analysis/commentary (Ngo is doing X in the video). Why should we only include commentary that says X but not commentary that says Y? Consider that the other sources did not reach out to Ngo for comment nor did they include reference to Ngo disputing the claim (PM only added it after the fact). Reason actually did reach out to PM and Ngo for comment. Springee ( talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not they are accusing Ngo of wrongdoing is irrelevant vis-a-vis BLP, remember BLP applies equally to "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” information. I dont see any other analysis/commentary pieces, the others all appear to be factual reporting. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is. Claiming someone was complicit in a crime or aware a crime was about to occur yet failed to mention it is an extraordinary claim and thus requires stronger sourcing than saying they weren't. Any time a news source moves from clear description to subjective description you have analysis. PM's Blogtown says "Ngo can be seen laughing at jokes". That is analysis of the video. So why would we accept Blogtown saying that but refuse Reason saying "Ngo is not laughing at jokes"? Blogtown includes testimony from "Ben" but is "Ben" a reliable witness? Ben is a self declared under cover antifa operative. Any chance they have bias? Springee ( talk) 16:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed that the Mercury article was from their Blogtown vertical, to me that does change how we can use it and I have updated my original comment accordingly. Thank you for the shockingly relevant whataboutism, I think thats the first time I've ever seen it be constructive. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

As I was about write more here to check what the Ngo article states, I see that what we're talking about here in Guy's OP post is also duplicating to a point text in Andy Ngo#Departure from Quillette which is using some of these sources in question but from the standpoint of how they related factually to Ngo's departure. In other words, I would try to find a way to reduce the May Day section text (what's quoted above) and focus more on the the latter with the cavaets already in play, which the departure section already covers. There, the sources that are being questioned here are being used very appropriately (in that the publication of certain things triggered events hence their inclusion). In the May Day section, one might just have to forward section link to say "Ngo's interactions with the Proud Boys during the 2019 May Day led to his departure from Quillette in August 2019, as described below." and leave it at that. -- Masem ( t) 17:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem, this is a sound idea. Guy ( help! - typo?) 23:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• So what is the summary here? My feeling is people question the use of Blogtown. Ngo's counter arguments are DUE per ABOUTSELF and perhaps some sections need some heavy rework? Springee ( talk) 20:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, Ngo's comments definitely don't pass WP:ABOUTSELF, since they're unduly self-serving. For stuff like that we should wait until it's covered in a non-opinion source (and, ideally, a neutral one, but definitely a non-opinion one.) It absolutely can't be cited to Reason, which WP:RSP notes is a biased source that introduces weight issues - something that can only be cited to an opinion piece from there isn't really usable. (Also, by my reading, you have been arguing for using that particular weak source for months now without success? I would argue it's well past WP:DROPTHESTICK time on that - if Soave's opinions on the topic are noteworthy they should be reflected somewhere more usable eventually, but ultimately one person's WP:BIASED opinion-piece saying "well I disagree with the mainstream analysis" isn't really all that notable on its own. Who is Soave and why is it such a big deal how he feels about the topic?) -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comments from Ngo directly responding to accusations made about him (here, about what he was doing in the video) are never "unduly self-serving", and the only reason not to consider their use would be if the source was something like the Daily Mail where we know they may fabricate material, which is not something Reason is known for. If we have a BLP and there is criticism towards that BLP that we know the BLP has responded to, we should absolutely be including that, but with reasonable concern for due weight and of course making sure it is asserted as claim to the person in question. (And this is a more complex situation than a simple denial like WP:MANDY would involve). "Unduly self-serving" would be including commentary from Ngo from a questionable RS that stands on its own and is not in direct response to anything. Eg if Ngo wrote an essay on his stance on the media that was published in Reason, that would not be appropriate to include if no one else references it, as it would be self-serving. But we have a clear situation where the media has made a specific claim of what Ngo was doing with the Proud Boys, and Ngo has responded to something different to clarify. We can't say who is right (as the context here is that regardless of what the video showed, it led to his dismissal from Quillette), so we present it as a they-said, he-said description of the viewpoints and leave it at that. (But as I've cleared up above, the rest of that Reason article doesn't need to be touched) -- Masem ( t) 23:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, there is a regrettable tendency on Wikipedia to mirror the news media's equally regrettable tendency to give the accused the last word. 156 bazillion people all say X is a fascist, but, to placate their legal department, they close with "X denies being a fascist". We don't need to do that when solid fact-based sources say a thing, and the subject's denials are nothing beyond "nu-uh" and are not covered elsewhere. If mainstream sources note that X denies being a fascist, then we source the denial from the mainstream sources. If they don't, we don't need to go to primary sources to do their job for them. It's not our job to increase the prominence of denials that nobody else finds credible enough to report, right? Guy ( help! - typo?) 00:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  If this were a simple denial like MANDY, I would agree we'd not need to say anything. But this situation is more complex. First, there's no question Ngo was seen with the PBs in the video, he's not denying that. What's in question is the attitude he had in the video (eg was he laughing with the PBs?) And this is where the question of how biased the sources that use those descriptors like the Daily Beast come into play. They are describing it in one way, and Ngo, in the Reason, is saying they are completely wrong (the Reason author is also trying to say that, but I'm not considering their words here). This is more than just denying a claim but trying to clarify what the video was showing since he was actually there. Now, we don't necessary have to present it as a "last word" thing, we could say "While Ngo claims he was only watching the group with disinterest, The Daily Beast and others described him to be laughing with the other Proud Boys members in the video." or something like. As a point, unless we're talking a MANDY situation, it should be a matter of a last word fact: when it comes to a controversial situation where there is no clear objective answer (as what Ngo was doing w/ the PBs in that video), our job should be to document the fundamental argument of all sides then apply UNDUE if there is further commentary; here this would be spelling out the two takes on that video (Ngo's side and Daily Beast/et al's version) then adding on to that as that aids the supported claims from the media that Ngo has a close relationship with the PBs.

  Now, of course, the problem is totally avoided if we avoid saying anything about what the video showed, short of that he was seen with the PBs in it in the hours before the bar attack, and thus once that video was mentioned by the Portland paper, it led to his Quillette leave. I know the video is being used in the trail related to the PBs but in terms of Ngo's career, seems to have no further involvement, so staying to the factual parts of the video and omitting trying to describe any actions would seem far easier and avoids several weak or poor sources. That avoids not only the need to include Ngo's response but also the questionable descriptions from the Daily Beast et al. This is again thinking big, long-term writing and less about trying to document all of Ngo's faults. -- Masem ( t) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that Ngo is making assertions about facts and interpretation makes it worse, not better. That is a plainly self-serving reinterpretation of events that requires a high-quality secondary source to support - it is absolutely not the sort of thing we should source to the subject themselves or to an opinion piece. Likewise, "as a compromise, let's just ignore the interpretation and analysis of reliable secondary sources entirely" is silly. We're required to cover topics according to the best sources available; in this case it's very clear what consensus those sources have reached. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• We don't need to take Ngo's version as fact, just as his claims, and we aren't saying anything about the interpretation of the other sources. And if making a counterstatement of this type is self-serving, then any BLP's denial of any event that they were called out on - say, of sexual misbehavior for example - would have to be treated the same, which is of course BS and not going to fly. "Unduly" is key here; Ngo was called out doing something, reasonably he wants to claim something different. We don't have to believe him, and we don't have to give equal weight to his claims, but we shouldn't be absent any of his statements. -- Masem ( t) 01:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• He is making an extremely self-serving claim about the facts. If that claim is noteworthy, a reliable secondary source will pick up on it. If not, it is completely inappropriate for us to cover it via WP:SPS. The purpose of the self-serving claim rule is that we don't cite controversial interpretations of the facts, such as these, to parties with a clear self-interest. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• If someone accuses you of lying do you consider it extremely self serving to refute the claim? Also a reliable, secondary source did pick up on it. Conversely, the sources that are accusing Ngo are lower quality sources (Blogtown, Daily Beast, Daily Dot). Springee ( talk) 14:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't it be unduly self-serving? It contradicts all mainstream reporting ands present a version of events, which no news source supports, that plainly casts him in a better light than the facts established elsewhere. WP:BLP absolutely does not say that we should give additional weigh to denials or to favorable things subjects say about themselves; it says that we should reflect what high-quality, reliable secondary sources have said. A denial should be included when covered by high-quality secondary sources that can be cited for statements of fact, and should not be included otherwise. Usually denials get such coverage, which may be where your confusion comes from; but by my reading WP:BLP specifically disallows a denial that disputes the facts and is not covered in reliable secondary sources, because it will always be unduly self-serving. WP:BLP is about getting such articles right according to the highest-quality sources, not about giving subjects special dispensation, regardless of sourcing, to dispute the facts in whatever way they please. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• BLP is about doing no harm to BLPs, and while sourcing claims about the BLP to the highest quality sources is important if not required, when it comes what the BLP says about themselves, that's not a requirement at all (hence why BLPSPS has that callout). We should be trying to write articles like Ngo as neutrally and impartially as possible, and that means we don't automatically take the BLP's side nor the media's side on a controversial situation, and if that means that to present a BLP's side in a controversial situation using a BLPSPS, we should (MANDY-type simple denial situations notwithstanding). Yes, usually sources would document a BLP's response, but given that we're starting with sources like the Daily Beast and Vice (off-mainstream sources), I would not expect a reliable source to actually follow up on this situation. But this points to the fact that this aspect of the story (what Ngo's attitude while he was seen with the PBs in the video) may be one of those things that is coming from poor sources (not unreliable, but biased in this area as indicated in the OP part of this thread) and when considering the long-term factors here, it is simply better to focus on the facts there is no doubt of: this video of Ngo standing with the PBs in the hours before the May 2019 attack exists, it surfaced in August 2019 via the Portland paper, and shortly thereafter Quillette let him go. It avoids weak sourcing or having to justify any inclusion of Ngo's comments which is far better in the long run. -- Masem ( t) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, that's precisely the sort of thing that the "unduly self-serving" clause exists to prevent. The WP:SPS exception is for uncontroversial things like birthdates and numerical details, not for people to present self-serving interpretations of controversial aspects of their biography. Likewise, "I don't think we should cover this at all because the sources are weak, but if we do, we have to use this even weaker source" isn't a coherent or reasonable position to take. Our responsibility is to, an WP:BLP says, get it right, not to crowbar in a WP:FALSEBALANCE where we dig through the muck for a competing counter-claim to every credibly sourced fact. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need to revisit what counts as unduly self-serving.[ [56]] Ngo saying "I discuss this in my new book available this March at..." would be self serving as it doesn't contribute to the discussion of the event. Adding Ngo's blog post about a new podcast, speaker series, unrelated interviews etc is unduely self serving. Including statements where Ngo says, "I'm just trying to keep the city safe from XYZ" would be self serving. Responding to direct accusations of being complicit in crime, no that isn't self serving. This isn't a false balance case. [edit: WP:BLPPUBLIC also explicitly states "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." Springee ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)] Springee ( talk) 14:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• This, and why I think WP:MANDY is also useful to avoid including what would be "simple" rebuttals of criticism or accusations made against a person or group, as to set the bounds on the other side for inclusion so that, as Guy as put it, we're not always including someone's last word if it is simply "no I did't". We're supposed to be documenting controversies and it is clearly unclear exactly what Ngo is doing with the PBs in the tape (which he is not denying he was seen in, he's not changing that reality). Daily Beast et al claim one thing about Ngo's actual behavior and intent but they're only going off the video and you have to read that through the lens of those being sources that have no love for Ngo or PBs. Ngo is claiming another. We don't know who is who so if we're going to include the Daily Beast et al's description of Ngo's behavior that they are interpreting from the video , it is absolutely required for neutrality to include Ngo's view as it is at least published. If we had no statement from Ngo, if it were a simple MANDY "no I wasn't" claim, we'd not have to. But, as I've alternatively suggested, the entire situation can ignore the details of the video (outside Ngo being seen with the PBs in the hours before the bar attack) and mention it in the context that once the video surfaced, it led to his dismissal at Quillette, which seems far easier and more neutral overall. -- Masem ( t) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Including the denial is fine, including their version of events is not covered in including their denial though. BLP public is about adding “X denied the allegations” not “X explained that Y and Z were doing 8 and therefore the allegations were baseless which is supported by K because they hate the concept of 2 which according to X obviously means Y set X up.” Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wanted to jump in here with a clarification I also posted on Talk:Andy Ngo: The original source for the allegations is the Portland Mercury, not "Blogtown". Springee in particular keeps calling the Portland Mercury source "Blogtown", either out of genuine confusion or because they want to impugn its credibility under WP:NEWSBLOG. Here's the Portland Mercury's front page. Click on any link that's not in a specific separate section and it will go to a /blogtown/ link with the big "BLOGTOWN" above it. "Blogtown" is just the catch-all category for Portland Mercury articles online. It's not a newsblog, it's not any type of blog, it would be like me referring to the Reason article Springee is fond of as "the Media Criticism article" all the time. Loki ( talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would it be called "blogtown" if it isn't a blog? Conversely, if this was reliable journalism why didn't it reach out to Ngo for comment? Reason reached out to both Ngo and The Portland Mercury for comment. Is that typical of an op-ed? Let's be honest here, the sources that are accusing Ngo of wrong doing are not our best sources and we are using them to accuse Ngo of having foreknowledge of a crime and failing to act. Springee ( talk) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)