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.

Is right-wing think tank Accuracy in Media, run by this guy, an appropriate source for allegations that a living person is a propagandist for Russia? This source would not be used when it alleges against liberals (most of its work) but apparently when it makes extreme claims about other conservatives that's fair game, says MjolnirPants, who thinks he can make the source not right-wing by saying "no it's not" (see page history). Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

AIM looks as reliable in its political allegations as Jones himself, i.e. not at all Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

here is MjolnirPants, fighting the "post-fact universe" by discrediting years of research by SPLC who found that AIM is right-wing biased. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not the place to discus editors, and this could be viewed as a PA. As to the sources politics, that is irrelevant. Now do you have any evidence they have a poor reputation for fact checking?18:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Yes, the link I provided from the SPLC: "For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the "liberal" media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views." You would not find such a source on a BLP of anyone else so why here? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Accuracy in Media is a reliable source for the views of Accuracy in Media, so as long as the source is being used to present those views, and not as a buttress for a factual statement, it is an acceptable source. It's the difference between "Jones has been described as a 'pro-Russian propagandist'" and "Accuracy in Media, a right-wing media watchdog, has claimed that Jones is a 'pro-Russian propagandist'." One validates the opinion, the other presents it without accepting it as fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• However, after examining the source itself, it turns out that AIM does not call Jones a "pro-Russia propagandist" at all, it presents a much vaguer case, insinuating Jones' connection with Russian propaganda without saying outright that he is working to deliberately spread disinformation - although the insinuation is probably there. Being a "propagandist" requires intent, while spreading disinformation requires nothing more then gullibility and a lack of fact-checking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy in Media and Cliff Kincaid are not usable for anything in a BLP, e.g.:

1. Is the German Chancellor an Agent of Russia?: "Some comments or posts depicted Putin and Merkel kissing."
2. Expelling White Heterosexuals from the News Business

Editors who restored this source in a BLP over objections should be cautioned that future violations will result in sanction. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who restored it, because the only objection given was "AIM is another conservative, anti-UN and climate change denialist entity." If that's the sort of logic we use to determine what's RS, we might as well give up and let Jones himself run this site. That being said, the case made after Anarcho threw their little hissy fit over being reverted was a decent case, so I'm okay with removing this and considering AIM to be a generally unreliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Alex Jones and his loyalties to whatever cause, but Accuracy in Media is an organization promoting conspiracy theories. Among their previous claims:

• "President Obama has "well-documented socialist connections," is the product of a "mysterious upbringing as a Muslim in Indonesia," and may well not have been born in this country." Which is complete bullshit, as Obama was born in Hawaii, raised as a Christian, and is a right-winger.
• "Hillary Clinton is a lesbian." Her husband and daughter would probably dispute this.
• "Global warming is a "fraudulent scheme." " A scheme supported by scientific evidence.
• "The Roman Catholic Church has been hijacked "by Marxist elements" and is "facilitating the foreign invasion of the U.S." by northbound Latinos. " Anti-Catholicism that overlooks the Churches' anti-communist history and its minimal influence on migration movements.

It is not a reliable source even for what it states about itself. Dimadick (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This right here: is evidence enough that Alex is not a reliable source. His lawyers have already said that he plays a "character" for entertainment purposes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What makes BuzzFeed and Amazon.com RS? The former site looks like a venue for self-publishing to me. They're being used at the Final Destination 3 article, which is currently being evaluated against the site's Featured Article standards. SLIGHTLY^mad 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I can't see any discussion on the talk page about this. Or a notice that you've asked the question here. At the top of the page it asks for "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting." It's hard to answer a question about those two sources in a vacuum. You're wrong about Buzzfeed though, see this recent discussion. It's got professional staff running it, but of course it depends upon what on Buzzfeed is being used to support what in the article. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, it's my first time posting in this noticeboard. SLIGHTLY^mad 10:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the top, generally you need 3 things to get an effective answer. 1. The article, 2. The source, 3. The information the source is being used to reference in the article. Not all sources are RS all the time. Some may be RS on some occasions etc. Buzzfeed is one of those ones that needs to be judged in context because they do have an editorial staff and have been (in the last couple of years) doing genuine journalism work. They also print a load of clickbait fluff. So it needs context. Amazon itself is unlikely to be used as a reliable source for anything other than as a primary source on Amazon. Its pretty reliable for what it sells for example. Its about the context in which a source is used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a source for journalist-style information, an editorial board, and a decent reputation for accuracy. Though it has been known for deleting material which criticize the companies which advertise on it, in particular Unilever, Hasbro, Microsoft, and Pepsi.

Amazon.com is a company's website about the products it has on sale. It is not a third-party source. It does not provide in-depth coverage on anything, does not have a reputation for accuracy, ans it is rather light on facts. I doubt that it is even close to a reliable source. In which articles is it used for sourcing? Dimadick (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it used as a source, and agree that it is not appropriate----except, and this is where it gets tricky, it sometimes republishes (with permission) the entire text of reviews in Booklist, Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. As a source for those reviews, I don't know. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Amazon.com should be treated as a perennial website. There was a discussion started on this here: Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#Another list or an expansion of this one? (Amazon, iTunes, etc) as the upcoming release dates are accurate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't found any discussion of Amazon as a republisher of RS reviews. I agree that it's verboten for user reviews or publisher-supplied "blurbs," but it does reflect the often-unfavorable reviews books get in these publications, and publishes them at full length. I've run into a situation where it is the only source of some such reviews. Yet, on the other hand, we don't want to link to advertising. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not use amazon.com for reviews. I link the website on Wikipedia here only for release dates where I cant find them anywhere else. In some cases the official website for the said book will only link to amazon for the release info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If there's a useful review on Amazon we still need to find the original source and not use Amazon. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not always available, at least on the web. Kirkus is pretty good, the rest less so. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone. i wanna ask for this article, despite we don't know names of writers of this article, is this article reliable for Sarmatians studies ? can we use it for articles in wikipedia ? does president of Encyclopædia Britannica give permission to everybody (whom didn't passed academic course) to edit and change content of such this articles? --Rostam2 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally considered RS, and I would assume for Sarmatians as well. Britannica articles are edited by Britannica editors. It is, however, a WP:TERTIARY source.Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right noticeboard, but it's ref-related nonetheless. At Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton, an editor has inserted content—sources, apparently—but none of it is formatted correctly, or at all for that matter. It's just bare text, and some of it even instructs the reader to use Google of all things: 4, 5. It shouldn't be up to others to fix formatting for mass edits like that. Should I revert and point them to a guideline? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

yes. prokaryotes (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The question arises on Itamar, an Israeli settlement on the occupied Palestinian West Bank. ARIJ states which Palestinian villages have had land confiscated from them, to be given to Itamar.

I added the info, link, but it was removed, with the edit line "A polemic think tank is not a RS." As people can see: The webpage I tried to add is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation.

Needless to say, this is straight in the middle of WP:ARBPIA-land...

Feedback from outsiders will be appreciated, thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunno about that but you can use human rights watch and attribute it as a Palestinian claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that source says noting about where the Itamar land was taken from, AFAIK. The ARIJ have made studies of most of the Palestinian villages on the West Bank (There are one or two Governorates which are not yet finished), on each of them they give the amount of land which has been confiscated for which Israeli settlement, or other Israeli purposes (like checkpoints, military bases, settlement infrastructure, etc). So yeah, the answer here could potentially be important for a lot more articles than only the Itamar one, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been nothing advanced to show this small (they do list the entire staff on their site, including janitors) Bethlehem (despite the name, it is not in Jerusalem) org is anything but propaganda. They do not provide citations or even specifics (when, what, how, why) of their claims in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure the size is relevant, after all, single scholars can be WP:RS. That they do "not provide citation" is a rather strange objection to someone who thanks "Palestinian officials in the ministries, municipalities, joint services councils, village committees and councils, and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) for their assistance and cooperation with the project team members during the data collection process". Now, I can understand that some don't want to trust Palestinian statistics, but we have no more reason to distrust that, than we have to distrust Israeli statistics. Huldra (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

An NGO with 37 employees, many with relevant university education, is not "small". Icewhiz' argument, basically "they didn't tell us how they know, therefore they don't know or are lying", is simply bad logic that would exclude a large fraction of all sources that we use. I think that all NGOs in the I-P domain should be attributed as a matter of principle, but no valid reason has been advanced to exclude it altogether. Zero^talk 03:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They are reliable for their own words like any WP:SPS and maybe for Palestinian POV but If they claims were notable they would be reported by WP:NEWSORG.--Shrike (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ARIJ is not a WP:SPS by any stretch of definition. It is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, for a start. And the claim "If they claims were notable they would be reported by WP:NEWSORG" is completely unreasonable. If it had been true, then we could not, say, publish population numbers from the Israeli statistics, unless they had been reported in WP:NEWSORG. "What's Good For the Goose Is Good For the Gander", etc. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the use by others? Not finding much on Google News. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I get 365 hits for "Applied Research Institute" Jerusalem, including ABC Online: 6, The New York Times: 7, The Christian Science Monitor: 8. Also often used by Ma'an News Agency Huldra (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mainly Ma'an, which is the Palestinian official news agency. Sparse apart from that. Seems like a POV source, I think we can and should do better. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you any indication that the statistics they have given have ever been wrong? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to investigate whether sources convey "the truth." We evaluate sources based upon the criteria set forth in the policy, and I just don't see this cutting the mustard. Giving the sensitivity of the subject matter I think we have to reach for the highest quality sources, and not use ones that appear to be pushing an agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, though, is it possible to have a source which spells out who the Israeli settlers land used to belong to, without it being challenged as "pushing an agenda"? Sorry, but I cannot see that. This is a work funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, is it a partisan source? Again, I cannot see that. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Huldra hit the nail on the head. Every source that has negative information about Israel is judged as pushing an agenda and therefore unusable. Every Palestinian source is subject to such attacks. Fortunately, NPOV requires us to use sources with multiple viewpoints. If Coretheapple can point us at a higher quality source that examines the same issues, we'll be happy to use it. Zero^talk 00:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a subject-matter expert by any means but I believe that better sources track settlement activity and would be usable. If this is the best we can do, I would omit. Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue can be handled by careful phrasing and attribution. Itamar, like all settlements in the West Bank, is illegal under international law. We don't need the ARIJ to tell us this part. We can attribute to ARIJ the claims by Palestinians that it took over land from nearby villages. Other sources which flesh out the details are this B'Tselem source, and this article (from 2003) might also be useful to describe the evolution of Itamar: according to the story, until the Second Intifada, Itamar existed alongside Palestinian villages, but didn't directly take over the land from Yanun. However, after the violence after 2000, the situation changed. It quotes some Palestinians as saying that armed settlers prevented them from harvesting olives. It also quotes a spokesperson for Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This book also goes into a little bit of detail on Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I might be missing something, but those 3 sources while mentioning various other issues (e.g. building permits issued retroactively) do not mention, per my possibly flawed reading, land confiscation in regards to Itamar and the adjacent villages.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is there is academic consensus that king Narakasura's is of Mithila (region) (Videha)(India) origin. Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before. In her chapter "The Naraka Legends, Aryanisation and the "varnasramadharma in the Brahmaputra Valley" in 'Proceedings of the Indian History Congress' of 'Indian History Congress' she wrote that king Naraka is a local chief from Brahmaputra Valley region of India and not from Mithila. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Bhauma_dynasty#Naraka's origins.

My question is how wikipedia treats isolated studies by non-experts when it goes against long established scholarly consensus among mainstream academicians. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent contributors to this noticeboard such as A Quest For Knowledge, prokaryotes, Icewhiz, Darkness Shines and others consider commenting here, because this and similar issues involves multiple articles including current mentioned one, which will be helpful in near future also. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Recuse I am currently topic banned from articles related to India/Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Responding due to ping - I usually do not go into this topic area - but I will leave you with a metacomment after briefly looking both at the source, your comment, and the artile talke page. I believe the question you are raising is no so much a question in whether the particular source is reliable (it seems it is a peer-reviewed journal... but bear in mind that reliable does not mean infallible - premier sources do make mistakes and may be biased) - but what to do when different sources offer different opinions, speculations, or facts (and as a general note - in ancient history or mythology - one typically has opinion, conjecture, and scholarly consensus - but not hard cold facts) - this is a WP:WEIGHT issue, and the way to tackle this is assemble sources of the counterview(s) - and assess the notability of this particular claim. If you have one researcher saying X, and everyone else saying Y - X might not bear mentioning and in any event the scope would be limited even if mentioned. If it is a 50-50 split - both should be mentioned equally, 80-20 - you still have to devote some space to the 20, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines Oh i see, no problem. @Icewhiz You have made some important points which is interesting. Thank you. Your comments are helpful. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A new editor has been persistently editing James Craven (American actor) to insert and reinsert unsourced information that contradicts the article's only existing source, such as that he was born in Canada rather than Pennsylvania and that he died about 20 years later than claimed — and their only "source" for the changed information is "I knew him" (which isn't convincing if we can't prove that who the editor really knew isn't some other person who merely happened to have the same name). But conversely, the article's only existing source is his IMDb profile, which isn't considered a reliable source either because it can also contain errors.

I've protected the article for the time being, but since the vast majority of his roles listed in the IMDb profile seem to be either minor guest roles or entirely uncredited appearances as unnamed characters, it's not even clear that he would pass WP:NACTOR at all — but a proper WP:BEFORE test would require checking American media of the 1940s and 1950s, which is not a type of resource I have access to at all as I only have access to Canadian newspaper databases for that era. So could somebody with historical US newspaper access run a sourcing check to see if the article's an WP:AFD candidate or not? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Following on this now-archived thread...

This is about a specific use of the "wiki what" ref in the T.J. Miller article as follows:

Todd Joseph "T.J."¹ Miller (born June 4, 1981) is an American actor, comedian, producer, and writer.²

This is citation #1 in the article. It is putatively a source for the spelling of the initials without a space ("T.J." not "T. J."), but as the NYT ref shows - which is already provided and plenty enough reliable -- the name is spelled without a space. Similarly every other ref in the article spells it without a space - a fact also noted by BrillLyle here. So this brings no value and is just refspam, and we should not cite it here.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no dispute about how the initials in the name are stylized, I see no benefit to adding a comedy show as another reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What Cullen said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think this specific instance is resolved, based on the above and this and perhaps this.

More generally, User:Kingsindian kindly offered to tee up a neutral RfC on "whether the many Esquire sources come under REFSPAM".

My sense of the RSN outcome was: a) telling me not to have a cow over this; b) the ref is a primary source, and ~might~ have utility as such, but secondary sources are as always preferred for WEIGHT and everything else; and c) it depends on the specific use. (I was kinda disappointed that more people were not as disgusted by this manipulation as I am... but I also can hear it that other people are not and that folks have been at least a bit put off by my intensity.)

This instance was in my view a clear instance of REFSPAM that added no value, which is why I removed it and felt pretty confident that most folks would agree with that. I've reviewed the other instances and had decided to let them be for now.

So ... I don't know that an RfC is necessary to prevent future drama and don't want to waste people's time. That said, i would be delighted with an outcome that said "yes this is refspam" and if folks feel like an RfC would be useful or interesting I certainly wouldn't oppose it and am willing to risk it. OK that was a lot of words. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Like you said, seems resolved for now, we'll see what happens with the next episode or whatever. As I read it , you´re not the only "intense" one on the WikiWhat related editing. This "thing" has gone a little global BTW: 9. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - yes I shouldn't have made it like i am the only one troubled by this. Do you think an RfC would be useful and not a waste of time? Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

we'll see what happens with the next episode or whatever Is this going to be a weekly issues or whatever time period the show is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It could happen, good point (that makes me a little pro-RFC). AFAICT, every episode so far has led to edits of the articles in question.10 One response I read somewhere was something like "Treat it (WikiWhat) like we would any primary source/interview with subject in a BLP". That means, IMO, "not very useful in general, but if they provide a nice(r) picture, why not?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW Jytdog, do "they" still do during-the-show edits? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This "Wiki What" appears to be a glorified conduit for the subject and should be treated as such. It should only be used as a source if there is no alternative. I'd suggest not making a fuss, lest this organized, commercial trolling be fed in a big way. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• the trade rag article about the series says two things. ..."the weekly, five-episode show features an array of celebrity guests" but also says "by releasing these episodic series on Facebook Watch, Hearst is hoping to turn them into brands of their own." They have done five now -- Kate Upton, T.J. Miller, John Bradley West/Samwell Tarly, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., and Adam Conover. So maybe it is done. Maybe not. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not, Jytdog: 11. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks for catching that. just some ick. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the Washington Times RS for the following, the article in question is Patriot Prayer

Valerie Richardson writing in the Washington Times has said that critics of Gibson have argued that his rallies, even though they are not sponsored by white nationalists do attract those with racist outlooks. The SPLC have noted that the organizers of the 7 August 2017 rally had “promised the critics who talked with them that racist elements had been denounced and uninvited from the rally.” but that the Proud Boys, and members of Identity Evropa (IE) as well as local IE leader, Jake Van Ott were seen at the event. Gibson says that people who are affiliated with IE have appeared at his events, but has made it clear they were unwelcome and has ejected them when possible. Gibson also says “It’s a constant problem because we get these random people that are trying to provoke and they’re trying to agitate,”

Given I have attributed it to both the article author as well as the newspaper I'm not seeing an issue with it, thoughts please Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the Washington Times article that you are citing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that it's reliable but I think the paragraph isn't WP:NPOV. The Washington Times article paints a much more positive light on Patriot Prayer than the paragraph above. I'm curious what other WP:RSN regulars think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't split hairs. It is a reliable source; however, cite it in a neutral way. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I'm curious as to how you would change it so it is more NPOV, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If you google "Washington Times climate change", you can see that the WT regularly publishes fringe theories on that subject at least. prokaryotes (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm going to ask a different question: What is it you are trying to use it as a source *for*? To indicate Patriot Prayer isn't racist? Or to indicate that Gibson has stated he rejects Racism? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm using it for the text above, that critics say nasties are drawn to the rallies, but Gibson responds with his words to these allegations, saying they ain't welcome and are asked to leave when identified Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ah my bad, I didn't realize you meant that paragraph as a direct quote of what you intended to include. No I don't have any issue with it. You have covered that undesirables are going to the rallies and also the organizer's response. Seems neutral enough to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the proposed paragraph is meant to be the opening paragraph in this section. While I agree there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the paragraph as representative of Gibson's response to criticism (and the paragraph adequately cites the response as Gibson's own words), a few editors (including myself) have objected to DS's proposal to open the section with it as there are many, reliable secondary sources that comment on what Patriot Prayer is. Publishing Gibson's response to the portrayal of the group without first giving an accurate portrayal of the group seems both nonsensical and undue. The discussion is ongoing at the talk page where I would invite DS to address the point, as I don't think RSN is the appropriate place for it, nor should consensus here that the sourcing isn't problematic lead DS to believe that his suggested placement within the overview is supported by it. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well DS has moved it to the end, so that satisfies the placement argument. Unless there is an actual argument as to the reliability of the content, I don't see there is anything further to really discuss. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there are now three sections on the TP covering the overview section. DS pointed out that his latest revision actually moved the paragraph to the end, but I see another editor reverted that with some other contentious edits. It seems like there might be one more editor who questions the reliability, but with the correct placement I believe his concerns will be in the minority. We'll point him here to post a counterargument if he feels strongly enough. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is a major issue with giving so much weight to Joey Gibson's words as the actions of the group do not match those words. Since the hate crime violence from someone drawn to a Patriot Prayer rally, Gibson began to speak against neo-Nazis and white nationalists; but then the group constantly has Proud Boys in their numbers and gives a platform speeches by the likes of Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”, Jake Von Ott, Jeffery Hughes, Kyle Chapman. Kyle Chapman gave his "war on whites" speech on Sept. 26th12 so it seems this disconnect between Joey's words and the actions of the group is longstanding and consistant.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Recent discussions are here and here. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

While no doubt the WT meets the low standards of rs, it is a poor newspaper and should be avoided. I can't see anyone researching any current events using it. I think though that weight comes into play. If the WT is the only reliable source reporting something, then it is insignificant. If major media are reporting it too, them use them as better sources. TFD (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

^^ This. WT uses the fonts and style of a reliable source, but the content is frequently quite poor and it's best avoided in most cases (at least in my experience, having come across it many times, my impression is that, among the sources with an obvious ideological filter, it's a little step up from Breitbart and AddictingInfo, and a big step down from, say, National Review or Salon). Best avoided in most cases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Is Daily Kos a reliable source please? I'd like to add some content about Wharton professor William T. Kelley, but I can't find a better source than this so far. So if it's not reliable, it could be "fake news"!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not being a reliable source is NOT the same as being "fake news", not even close, since "fake news" means things that the creator recognizes as being -- or at least is completely indifferent to whether it is -- untrue. Daily Kos is, essentially, a partisan political blogging platform, so not reliable for statements of fact: what they say may be true or it least the writer believes to be true, but we can't rely upon that. Statements there can be primary sources: reliable for expressing the opinion of the writer his/herownself.

In this case, no, it's not usable since it's secondhand information reported from a single source -- the writer -- allegedly coming from someone who is no longer able to confirm or rebut it, disseminated from an unreliable source. I'm not sure it would be reliable even if had been printed on the front page of the New York Times. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Main page content at Daily Kos is often partisan, but has at least some amount of editorial control. User diaries (such as the OP's link) on Daily Kos are entirely unreviewed and are not reliable sources. The links in the article may be to reliable sources, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

To settle a difference of opinion on blue, some opining is requested. SiefkinDR (talk · contribs) is insisting that we need to provide a citation for blue being the colour of the sky, and referencing it with a dictionary. I am insisting otherwise. I also have a problem with the phrase"blue the colour of the clear sky" as it isn't at sunset or sunrise or night for that matter. Using a dictionary to cite this I am not thrilled about. The colour pages are deathly quiet so more opinions would be good. We have similar issues at white and red.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well given that the sky being blue, and the reasons for that in the second para, mentioning it twice is pointless so I reverted that addition. But this proves that people will argue over anything 😅 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Useful source - Shyamal (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Smith, Glenn S. (2005). "Human color vision and the unsaturated blue color of the daytime sky" (PDF). Am. J. Phys. 73 (7): 590–597. Bibcode:2005AmJPh..73..590S. doi:10.1119/1.1858479.

Thanks - that is interesting! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A dictionary is a terrible source for that fact. I see no reason to cite this in the lede; the implicit citation through the hyperlink to Rayleigh scattering and discussion in the article body (under "Why the sky and sea appear blue") is more than sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And yellow

This is a problem on some other colour pages - e.g. yellow, the same user has prominently "yellow is the color of ripe lemons and many egg yolks" cited to the OED...which I am concerned is too general and is possibly incorrect (some eggyolks are more orange..as are some ripe lemons I've seen too...and I have no idea about eggyolks of other animals other than chickens). Hence my preferred is "Many fruit are yellow when ripe, such as lemons and bananas, their color derived from carotenoid pigments. Egg yolks gain their color from xanthophylls, also a type of carotenoid pigment" which doesn't go so far as to assume all eggyolks are yellowbut does discuss them. Anyhoo...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And red

The OED apparently says red is the colour of rubies, blood and strawberries, but I am not happy with the inaccuracy as venous blood can be more purple blue..crustacean blood is blue, many rubies are more pink than red and strawberries have little tan seeds all over them and white bits too. Again, my response is talk about pigments etc. in para 3 of lead...what do others think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as this thread is concerned, I can see a source supporting one version and your preference (supported by your original research) for another. I'm sure you can see where this rationale is leading. Try bringing alternative sources to the discussions on the talk pages of the associated articles and your proposals to modify the article contents will likely be expidited. Edaham (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a mite suspicious that the publisher of this article may be an unreliable publisher, considering that it was considered a potential predatory publisher. On the other hand this particular item is also on ResearchGate. Some additional uses exist (one of which states that the group may be self-publishing). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

See remarks here. Also note that appearance on ResearchGate carries no implication of reliability -- registered members can upload pretty much anything they want. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Aye - I did realize that ResearchGate is essentially self published shortly after hitting "send" - doesn't seem like a RS then. Perhaps other uses of Intechopen merit cleanup too, don't they?JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been using this website quite a bit for the Bakyt Torobayev page. It's a news agregator -- so it collects and reposts newspaper reports online from various sources in Central Asian countries. What do folks think about the reliability of such website? It is hard to examine the reliability of the content behind what has been posted. Per this, I also just found out that it translates Kyrgyz articles into Russian for the sake of accessibility. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this can vary, when they post something from a reliable source, that's probably fine (although sourcing to the original source would be preferable), but the problem with aggregators is that they may occasionally, or more often, source their material from dodgier places. The aggregator in itself is probably not reliable for much, but they may carry content that, in its origin, is reliable for various subjects. Do you have a specific issue in mind? --Dailycare (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dailycare: Thanks for your response -- no, not really, other than the reliability of the sources it translates. As the material is translated, that content must be looked at more deeply than some bog-standard agregator. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here I have found the list of sources that it translates from. Most are not accessible online, as most are translations from Kyrgyz paper newspapers. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the article for Leatherface (2017 film), we have two sources stating that the film will receive a home video release internationally in December 2017. However, these are international news sites and I have no idea if they are reliable. One is called DVD-Forum.at (which claims to be a magazine and not a literal forum), while the other is Blairwitch.de. Help? DarkKnight2149 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I m not sure about those two sources, but this one by FILM.TV seems like it could be worth a look. The about page translated via Google Translate suggests they have an editorial team. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I ran into this at Bamboo network, where The Global Bell Curve by Richard Lynn and published by Washington Summit Publishers, which is run byh Richard B. Spencerand specializes in white nationalist and far-right books is used 10 times to back statements on "economic clout" and history. I raised this with the editor who added it, Backendgaming (talk · contribs) who replied "I've read and have a PDF version of the book and it certainly contains an enormous amount of reliable sociological data that is consistent and congruent with the economic success of the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia with regards to the Bamboo network article. I have not seen any element of white nationalism as the book presents rational arguments based on logical data presented in an easily readable form that's hard to refute, though I see that the data extrapolated from the samples were rather sloppy without considering social and political implementations. The author Richard Lynnand the publisher Washington Summit Publishers seems controversial but it seems to act as a litmus test to the open-mindedness of advocates of political correctness as well as liberals who want to provocatively shut down any attempt to discredit any sort of compelling evidence that backs up a cogent argument by using terms such as white nationalism against observation-based logic that runs completely counter to the egalitarian narratives of liberal orthodoxy of the politically correct."

He's also used the source at History of the Jews in China, Chinese people in Myanmar, Hoa people, Chinese Cambodian, Thai Chinese and probably others. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

What is Bamboo Network? It is a redlink for me. Regarding the actual source I think it can be used without caution in regards to claims that are not relevant to white nationalism. If claims are about white nationalism then you would need to analyse whether it was primary or second sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the red link. He's a psychologist with no qualifications in history or economics. Why would we use someone with no qualifications? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Richard Lynn is a controversial (this does not mean necessarily 'wrong') psychologist (not a historian) who has scientifically researched and published views on IQ as related to race, nationality, sex etc. He has advocated for social responses like anti-immigration and eugenics to prevent IQ degeneration in a society. The premise behind the comedy film Idiocracy (stupid people breed more and will outnumber us)? That's this guy's brainchild. He is the legitimate science face used by white supremacists (note I am not saying he is a white supremacist) to justify their racism. Which is why Spencer will publish his work. Because his work is very controversial, it has been thoroughly dissected, criticized, peer reviewed etc. Later research has both found contradictory, statistical flaws but also confirmed some aspects (if not the causes). Due to the above, he should by no means be used as the primary or sole source on something. And I would suggest anyone who does so take a long hard look at the R&I arbcom cases. With regards to history, he is not a historian and is not an expert in that area - however he of course has published regarding historical intelligence, societal factors, economic etc - which are relevant to his work. Essentially he shouldn't be used on any topic outside the race & intelligence area, and within that his work has to be very carefully vetted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lynn is quite notable (and probably blackballed by most publishers, which may affect the publisher choice here). My 2 cents are that this should be used only attributed to Lynn, and that Lynn who is a psychologist, should not be usually used for history which he may quote accurately - yet selectively (to support his underlying thesis on intelligence), and without in-depth knowledge of the subject. He's not writing on history - he's writing on alleged intelligence variations and using historical anecdotes to support these variations.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should use this as we would any partisan or heavily disputed source. That is, attribute it as the author's claims where the author's views would be notable rather than stating them as fact, and prefer better and less disputed sources for questions of fact. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Nothing published by Washington Summit should be considered a RS for facts. Maybe as a source for the authors (attributed) opinion but most of what they publish is FRINGE anyway, which means that including such views is going to be UNDUE (as I would argue it is in this case) unless it's for an article about white nationalism or other racist ideologies & views. This should go without saying tbh - the idea that this press has anything remotely resembling the editorial oversight and control we expect RS to have is laughable. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Who the publisher is does impact reliability. I agree that the work should be considered generally unreliable. I also agree that we would make an exception when directly discussing Lynn's opinions (and that, in such an exception, in text attribution is required). UNDUE is definitely a factor in presenting opinions, so the exception would be very limited. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• If the publisher showed all the signs of editorial control, etc. we'd expect from any RSes, and wasn't the type of open and/or predatory publisher as there is in some science areas, does it matter what the viewpoint/stance of the publisher is to the work itself? (I don't know if this is true for this specific case, just generalizing). There are plenty of publishers out there that have their POV on certain topics clearly visible, but we don't rule those out the books they publish due to that view. I would agree that the more "extreme" the view, the more likely the RS of the publisher falls apart as they are less likely to exhibit editorial control. Obviously, the largest weight on the question should start with the author first, and in this case, it's clear their position is what makes the work unreliable for fact, and not so much the publisher. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"does it matter what the viewpoint/stance of the publisher is to the work itself?" - Yes. WP:FRINGE. Volunteer Marek  14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of publishers out there that have their POV on certain topics clearly visible, but we don't rule those out the books they publish due to that view. Those publishers don't openly espouse (and exist to spread) racial hatred. Sorry but that's a major false equivalence and a lousy argument. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

WP is amoral (eg we can't be prejudgemental because someone has a belief that is usually seen as immoral). As long as the publisher meets all other expected requirements for being an RS and has demonstrated their follow-through on that - in other words, looking at what they do, verses what they say - then we should consider the publisher acceptable (you can still beg the question about the author). I do think that it is reasonable that the more extreme viewpoint a publisher has, the less likely they are going to have the quality of editorial control we expect, but we can't presume that. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There are publishers that promote religion. A publisher espousing racism shouldn't be dismissed out of hand - the question should be the quality of editorial oversight at the publisher, the publisher's reputation, etc. (all of which might be affected by the publisher adopting a marginal position in current society - though in past and future eras this may be different). In this case is irrelevant as on the author level we have a psychologists providing historical anecdotes to support his non-History related claims).Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Question Has the content of the book, in whole or in part, been discredited by qualified experts? If yes, then I think it should not be considered RS. However if the basis for rejecting it is exclusively that we don't care for the publisher (understandably so) then I think we need to proceed with great caution here. This could end up touching on WP:NOTCENSORED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I would expect most comments to be on his ideas about the bell curve, ie the area where he has qualifications. These would mainly be other psychologists also without qualifications in history. Why would we consider a psychologist a reliable source for history or economics? Doug Weller talk 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a fair question. My response is do we permit the citing of other works by authors who lack an academic background in the subject they are writing about? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I can think of three reasons that alone might give us pause in accepting this but collectively probably tip the scale. First is the publisher which is a known purveyor of fringe material. Secondly is the issue raised above regarding the lack of credentials. Lastly in the absence of some kind of serious review by one or more qualified experts that says this is not a bunch of bovine waste matter, combined with the other two issues, my instinct says we should not accept this as a reliable source. If reviews from credible sources are produced, I would be willing to reconsider my oppose. But for now I think we are being asked to extend a bit too much faith and credit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously? A book published by a Neonazi publishing house is considered as a reliable source by anybody here? Does it have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", our primary criterion? WP:NPOV is not a suicide pact! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude -- the publisher is decidedly WP:FRINGE, read: neo-Nazi / white supremacist. Besides, there are serious WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT issues with citing a psychologist for the topics of economic history. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Reality check: we don't use white-supremacist tracts as reliable sources when writing a serious, reputable encyclopedia, unless they are explicitly being used to show what white supremacists believe. People suggesting otherwise really need to re-examine their understanding of this project. Secondary reality check: we don't cite psychologists as authorities on history, for the same reason that we don't cite dentists as authorities on aerospace engineering. If neither of those issues is enough, then at a minimum this material is fringey and does not deserve serious mention here unless specifically presented as a fringe viewpoint. MastCell ^Talk 01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)