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.

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: PatCheng (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I recently reverted a section on The Epoch Times (which itself is a deprecated source on WP) which cited three opinion articles on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's coverage of ET's peddling of conspiracy theories on COVID-19, which the editor has misrepresented as reports from Toronto Sun. Does these opinion articles constitute due weight on The Epoch Times article? --PatCheng (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You removed more than that. In the same edit you removed all of this, saying "Removed per WP:UNDUE. You cited several opinion columnists which fails WP:RS":

"On April 29, 2020 CBC reported that some Canadians was upset with Epoch Times's claim that China was behind the COVID-19. It described that the Epoch Times polarized people and advanced a conspiracy theory about the origin of the corona virus. The report noted an earlier version of the headline incorrectly stated "the Epoch Times claimed China made the virus as a bio-weapon". Since its publication, the CBC report's headline had been changed for three times. At the beginning, the headline included words 'racist and inflammatory', which was removed in the later versions of the headline.

"On May 1, 2020, an article on National Post defended the Epoch Times and argued that the corona virus did originate in China and reputable mainstream media outlets had reported the virus possibly escaped from a viral research lab in Wuhan. The article was titled with "Canada Need a better CBC". It commented that Epoch Times' suggestion that the virus could be accidentally released from a Wuhan lab does not justify CBC's hit piece and urged that Canada government should appoint serious leaders for CBC. The report said due to its extensive contacts in China, the Epoch Times has often led Western media in matters the China's Communist Party regime has tried to suppress, including the effort to cover up information about the coronavirus. The article also commented that China's Communist government quarantined Wuhan city but didn't inform WHO about the danger of COVID-19, which caused the world-wide pandemic later. Many governments in the world shared the same view with The Epoch Times that Chinese government was of "irresponsibility and dishonesty".

What's wrong with this source for instance?

And although this isn't NPOVN, I don't understand what was "undue". Doug Weller talk 09:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, we certainly should not be using Conrad Black, a convicted fraudster pardoned by Trump, writing in the National Review, as a primary source for opinion about the Epoch Times. Guy (help!) 16:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: missed that. I agree entirely. We might use NR at times, but not that. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The Conrad Black piece was in National Post not National Review. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand how an article section detailing three opinion pieces is undue? The series of edits looks to be an improvement to the article. There is summary text in the COVID section for Some Canadians... CBC news piece. I'd argue PatCheng did not go far enough and Some columnists defended Epoch Times' coverage of COVID-19 and noted that criticism... citing the three columns is undue and should be removed. fiveby(zero) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Now the section has "It i.e. Epoch Times has promoted anti-China rhetoric and conspiracy theories around the coronavirus outbreak, for example through an 8-page special edition called "How the Chinese Communist Party Endangered the World", which was distributed unsolicited in April 2020 to mail customers in areas of USA, Canada, and Australia. cite to CBC.cacite to msn.com" The msn.com cite is worthless, it doesn't say that anyone received that particular edition. The cbc.ca cite is dubious for saying "anti-China rhetoric" because, as the opinion articles point out, the opinion of a woman in Kelowna plus an anonymous postal employee isn't the same as a fact. The cbc.ca cite is also poor support for saying "conspiracy theories" because it was apparently influenced by their headline (PatCheng removed "The earlier headline also incorrectly stated the Epoch Times claimed China made the virus as a bioweapon." and later removed the cite which showed the headline). I think therefore that the stuff which cites the CBC story doesn't belong in the article, but it is also workable to point out what others think of the CBC story. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, plenty of sources for this (and it happened in the UK and Ireland, too): 4, 5, 6. What are you challenging? The fact of it being distributed or the fact of it being anti-Chinese conspiracist claptrap? Guy (help!) 10:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I do not see a way that I could make it more clear without repeating. We'll see whether other people bother to read. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The /opinion/ ones can probably be left-out, but the CBC April 29 article is a good source. Normally we don't need to include undue ET responses if independent sources don't also mention them. —PaleoNeonate – 06:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes - we don't need WP:MANDY-level denials not covered in third party sources. Guy (help!) 10:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello , I'd like share some view

1. There are also a lot of third-party media defending Epoch Times. Different views from reliable sources should be allowed in Wikipedia per WP:NPOV.-------Here are 3 examples: 1.True North: CBC article echoes Chinese Communist Party talking points、　2. CBC targets independent news outlet for 'racism' after it reports accurately on China、3. Exposing CBC's disgraceful story attacking anti-Communist China Epoch Times
2. "Weather Virus came/leak from Laboratory?" That's not "anti-Chinese conspiracy theory" but possibilityies for truth-finding. Chinese Communist Party CCP not equal to China. CCP is a Totalitarian regime , bad records on abusing biotech and genetic Engineering, persecute Chinese people, forcely harvests organs from living Chinese Prisoner of conscience for money.

1. Epochtimes's report did not say Covid-19 "a Chinese made bioweapon".' but maybe possibilities like leaking from China laboratory. and indeed, many mainstream media international or of Taiwan, even Hong Kong(also Pro-Beijing Madia) , also reported several possibilities. Taiwanese and Hongkongner are also Chinese people, That's irrelevant to anti-Chinese conspiracy.
2. Besides many mainstream media reported about Covid-19 and Wuhan laboratory, and wheather CCP have military biotech project.for example:
   1. 2020-6-14 Canadian scientist sent deadly viruses to Wuhan lab months before RCMP asked to investigate:Amir Attaran, a law professor and epidemiologist at the University of Ottawa said "It is suspicious. It is alarming. It is potentially life-threatening," said "We have a researcher who was removed by the RCMP from the highest security laboratory that Canada has for reasons that government is unwilling to disclose. The intelligence remains secret. But what we know is that before she was removed, she sent one of the deadliest viruses on Earth, and multiple varieties of it to maximize the genetic diversity and maximize what experimenters in China could do with it, to a laboratory in China that does dangerous gain of function experiments. And that has links to the Chinese military."
   2. 2020-06-04_Ex-head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove says coronavirus 'is man-made' and was 'released by accident' - after seeing 'important' scientific report
   3. Taiwan's mainstream Central News Agency(a public Media owned by all people):2020-04-25_俄專家支持病毒人造論 稱中國科學家做了瘋狂事Russian experts support the theory of virus artificiality, claiming that Chinese scientists did crazy things
   4. Hong Kong's mainstream pro-Beijing Media report:2020-06-09_挪威研究稱新冠病毒部分人工製造 獲前英情報主管撐Norwegian research says part of Covid-19virus artificially , this view supported by former British intelligence director
   5. more example can be listed, also many chinese-language media reported, even pro-Beijing media in Taiwan and Hong Kong also reported some. Many expert keep the possibilities,also the USA and UK Government, and ex-vicehead(lead fight 2003 SARS) of Taiwan's DOH(Department of Health).
   6. Some media reported that France expert or China ex-officer concerned about wheather ChineseCommunistParty use the P4-laboratory for what? for risky research? for bioweapon? Many assumptions and doubts comes form--- CCP's opaque and deny international and WHO expert a field investigation in china. Wetrace (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

      IDK about the others but WP:DAILYMAIL is not an acceptable source. buidhe 06:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

1. 1. Thank you. Sources above not including DailyMail. In fact, many Taiwan Mainstream reported about Virus possibilities with laboratory. Wetrace (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Wetrace, those don't come across as anything close to the quality of sources that criticise Epoch Times. It's also pretty clear why a popular Taiwanese site would support the Epoch Times' anti-CPC agenda. Guy (help!) 15:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources Wetrace cited are simply speculating, and there is no consensus regarding the addition of such items. There are other sources which dispute the lab leakage claims. 78. Also in this reverted edit 9 Wetrace promoted a fringe theory about Obamagate not being a conspiracy theory, citing an opinon article from National Review--PatCheng (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PatCheng,

1. How Virus spread? It can be discussion, not conspiracy. And indeed Chinese Communist Party's history was full of CCP's agenda and conspiracy against people and demoncracy, human rights.
2. It's not proper that your accusation of so-called "promote". One thing with several aspect to discussion, and many also from reliable sources. Wetrace (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely unreliable Why hasn't this been deprecated and blacklisted? Peddling conspiracy non-sense and the like is certainly not encouraging, and the entry at WP:RSP is quite unequivocal. What do sources do defend is that the virus originated in China (Bravo, Cpt. Obvious!), not the conspiracy theories about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC about reliable sourcing and the phrase "new religious movement" over at Talk:Falun_Gong#RfC_on_describing_Falun_Gong_as_a_new_religious_movement. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting CNN article about Worldometers ( https://www.worldometers.info/ ):

• The Covid-19 pandemic has catapulted one mysterious data website to prominence, sowing confusion in international rankings

Cited twice on COVID-19 pandemic, Twice on COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory, six times on COVID-19 pandemic in Iraq, twelve times on Pandemic, and 219 times on all Wikipedia pages. Is it a reliable source? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No, does not meet the standard of RS due to shady and obscure practices and having a reputation for INaccuracy rather than accuracy. buidhe 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

PS it was already deprecated at WP:COVID-19: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_6#Not_using_Worldometer_as_a_source_in_all_COVID-19_related_pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus ("Refrain from using Worldometer (worldometers.info) as a source due to common errors being observed as noted on

Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Case Count Task Force#Common errors. Link 1, Link 2") buidhe 05:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, so *this* was the media inquiry that both I and MarioGom were contacted for! Personally I was contacted via Reddit while MarioGom was contacted via email. As far as I know, he responded while I didn't.

Thanks for leaving a talk page message notifying me about this, but I'm afraid that I can't participate further in this discussion beyond saying not to use WOMC on COVID–19 articles/templates **only**. Deepest apologies. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ping User:RayDeeUx, User:MarioGom, User:Doc James. The CNN reporter should be told about the current discussion. You can send the contact info to me here; I won't mention your name to any reporter. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, now hang on a moment–why should we get CNN reporter(s) involved? They only know about this WOMC situation because of the thread mentioned at WP:WORLDOMETER. Not to offend them, but they don't know as much about the situation as we do. Cheers, u|RayDeeUx (contribs | talk page) 23:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Basic politeness. If a reporter reports on something (The Covid-19 pages deprecating Worldometers but only on those pages) and the situation changes drastically (RSNB deprecating Worldometers on all Wikipedia pages) it is polite to let them know in case they are working on a followup article. I wasn't expecting any input from CNN here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to get some more input here at RSNB to supplement the WP:LOCALCON noted above.

I don't think it is a good source, but if I start removing citations, someone is sure to quote https://www.worldometers.info/about/ :

"Trusted Authority

Worldometer was voted as one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA), the oldest and largest library association in the world.

Worldometer is a provider of global COVID-19 statistics for many caring people around the world. Our data is also trusted and used by the " UK Government, Johns Hopkins CSSE, the Government of Thailand, the Government of Pakistan, the Government of Sri Lanka, Government of Vietnam, Financial Times, The New York Times, Business Insider, BBC, and many others. :Over the past 15 years, our statistics have been requested by, and provided to: Oxford University Press, Wiley, Pearson, CERN, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), The Atlantic, BBC, Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science & Technology, Science Museum of Virginia, Morgan Stanley, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dell, Kaspersky, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Amazon Alexa, Google Translate, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the U2 concert, and many others.

Worldometer is cited as a source in over 10,000 published books and in more than 6,000 professional journal articles."

Compare the above advertising claims with the CNN article:

• "Some governments and respected institutions have chosen to trust a source about which little is known."
• "It’s not clear whether the company has paid staff vetting its data for accuracy or whether it relies solely on automation and crowdsourcing. "
• "Edouard Mathieu, the data manager for Our World in Data (OWID), an independent statistics website headquartered at Oxford University, wtote} 'Their main focus seems to be having the latest number wherever it comes from, whether it’s reliable or not, whether it’s well-sourced or not,” he said. “We think people should be wary, especially media, policy-makers and decision-makers. This data is not as accurate as they think it is.' "
• "Visitors can report new Covid-19 numbers and data sources to the website – no name or email address required."

In my opinion, that last quote gives us our answer:

• Worldometers.info is unreliable and all citation to it should be removed. Any claim made in an otherwise-reliable source that lists Worldometers as the source should also be considered to be unreliable.

Thoughts? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree with this. However, many more people participated in the COVID-19 discussions, so that consensus is stronger than what you're likely to get here. buidhe 16:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• True, but I cannot apply that WP:LOCALCON decision anywhere other than on the Covod-19 pages. If you look at

https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=Worldometers

You will see that the source is used on a couple of hundred pages. Someone should not be able to anonymously post made-up numbers to worldometers.info and have those numbers appear on Wikipedia. There are 65,536 people who agree with me on this. (Source: worldometers.info) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The quotes from the CNN article above are very concerning. If it's true that user-submitted numbers show up on the site without oversight, then it's absolutely not reliable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Sdkb. Worrisome. I would err on the side of caution and consider this unreliable until we can confirm they have some kind of process and that this is not just user reported approximations (as it seems to be) + an aggregation of other sources (let's use those directly then). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Unless something has changed in the past month or so, I recall that we stopped using WorldOMeters as a source because some editors on here found that it was double-counting some cases which increased the number of reported cases beyond what it actually was. I haven't kept up much with the data aggregating sites but I believe we're still using 1point3acres? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

..."We" meaning "the Covid-19 pages". Now the discussion is whether "we" as in "all of Wikipedia" should stop using WorldOMeters as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Keeping track of coronavirus stats is only a part of WorldOMeters. Have other things like those noted on the live counters been found to be inaccurate? They list the sources used on this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to play Whac-A-Mole with every different kind of statistic they provide. Unreliable is unreliable. Do they have a reputation for accuracy? No. Do they have a history of printing corrections and retractions? No. Do we know anything about them other than that their HQ is a private home? Not really. We have a reliable source that says "Their main focus seems to be having the latest number wherever it comes from, whether it’s reliable or not, whether it’s well-sourced or not. We think people should be wary, especially media, policy-makers and decision-makers. This data is not as accurate as they think it is".

Also, that's just too many statistics for a company being run out of a private home to verify.

If WorldOMeters provides a statistic and gives a source, we should check to see if that source contains the information WorldOMeters says it does, and if it does we should use that source. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I did some poking around in probably April and decided Worldometers were aggregating data and drawing conclusions in ways that were almost certain to produce incorrect results except by sheer luck. Unless things have changed since then, no, unreliable. —valereee (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable per the issues raised by CNN (and we would not be needing this discussion at all if our COVID coverage complied with Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines for biohealth content and Wikipedia’s policy that it is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and got out of the business of tracking newsy numbers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Attribution needed for opinions. Most users agree that the The Red Pill Movie is not reliable on its own, described as a documentary film that is not subject to any quality or reliability standards with respect to the information presented. Users in support of its reliability did not provide clear examples to support the source based on Wikipedia guidelines.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

---

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Is The Red Pill (2016), directed by Cassie Jaye, a reliable source for subjects related to the manosphere or the men's rights movement? — Newslinger talk 00:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on about this film, The Red Pill at the Manosphere article. I think the film is one sided, dishonest and begging the question. Having shared my opinion of the film, I'd like to know what other editors think, is this a reliable source for the manosphere or men's rights movement articles? Official site here: 10 Reviews here: 11 Cheers Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not except for attributed opinion of people who are filmed. We should avoid citing films anyway as they are difficult to verify. buidhe 00:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable per my comments at the manosphere talk page. To repeat them here, the film been criticized for lack of accuracy: From the outset, Jaye’s film is tilted in favor of the MRAs she interviews and lacks a coherent argument, not due to her own internal conflict but because the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism.” (12), and there is no indication it meets requirements at WP:RS that it be recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well I don't think that's a fair counter argument to say the doc 'misunderstand the terms'...it presents a challenge to the meaning of those terms, yes, but a debate cant really be dismissed as misunderstanding if the arguments are coherent enough. I'd say enough factual basis supports the doc to say it has merit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.150.142 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 76.109.150.142 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

  I am simply presenting one (of quite a few) sources that have taken issue with the accuracy of the film; it is not my criticism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thae LA Times article is a film review not an academic critique. Moreover the author doesn't seem to understand the issues from a factual view. In any case if it's a contest about what sources are reliable we certainly cannot rely on this opinion piece. Tony999 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tony999 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  I've presented it as just one example of many criticisms of this film's lack of factual accuracy (others found at The Red Pill#Critical response or a quick Google search). However I'm not sure I understand your objection—the film is certainly not an academic work, so why may only academic sources criticize it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable I'm familiar with the documentary mostly due to the author's TED talk. I suspect there is a lot of good information in it. However, I think it counts as basically self published. As such it can't be treated as a RS. A third party RS can reference it if it makes an important point and that would possibly make it DUE for inclusion but by itself, not a RS. Springee (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• reliable The film interviews multiple feminists and doesn't treat them any differently to the MRAs, so it's hard to say it's biased. If anything, she started off being very biased against the MRAs by her own admission. We should not trust sources attacking the film for biased reasons. For example, The LA Times is known to be a very feminist outlet - so of course it would object to feminism being criticised. The point of the film is to actually investigate the movement - something very few people seem to do. If we are going to discard the film, then we also need to discard all other opinion pieces about the movement. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Can you expand on how the film actually meets the policy requirements at WP:RS? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Certainly. The film is published by a reputable mass-media cohttps://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=42mpany known as Gravitas Ventures, which is a part of Red Arrow Studios. It has also been vouched for by The Daily Telegraph, and Heat Street; the latter of which wrote an interesting piece on the reaction to the film. It may challenge the ideology of some commentators, but it is a valid and valuable source regarding what MRAs believe; it should be treated as a character study on the movement, at the very least. Especially since we now know that several of its most famous detractors didn't actually watch it before attacking it. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

We have no evidence that documentaries from Gravitas should be regarded as reliable sources. This film appears to be more entertainment than journalism, and certainly not scholarly in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources on these men's movements seem sparse, if I'm honest. Major news outlets seem to conflate the names of entirely different groups - as if they were basically factions of the same thing, or all in it together. As far as sources go, this is actually the most accurate one I've ever seen outside of that article I linked above. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Orangemike on the lack of support for Gravitas being a publisher that make its documentaries RSes. As for the sparsity of sourcing that you're claiming, that's absolutely not the case. I just listed off for you eight separate, peer-reviewed papers that are currently in use at the manosphere article, and that's not even counting the book sources. I added most of those myself, and I only have access to two academic databases; there are far more out there that others who have broader access could add. We absolutely do not need to resort to poor quality documentaries due to lack of other quality sourcing; there is plenty. You have claimed that this is "actually the most accurate source you've seen", which seems to mean it fits your own opinions on the MRM, not that it in any way meets the requirements of WP:RS. You have also just discounted one of the academic sources as "biased" because it does not match your own definition of the MRM, despite it being a peer-reviewed paper by a professor of sociology. I'm not sure you are in a good position to be determining the reliability of sources in this topic area at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, of your eight peer-reviewed papers only two are relevant and the only one I was able to read featured multiple misconceptions and ideological statements about men's rights groups and what they want. This should not be surprising as these are Gender Studies journals you linked to - which are absolutely notorious for the poor quality of their work. The whole field has been disenfranchised in at least one country because of it. There was a prank a little while ago where some academics managed to get prominent Gender Studies journals to print Mein Kamph by changing 'Jews' to 'men' and 'Aryans' to 'women'. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You wrote on the manosphere talk page that "Only two of those even mention the men's rights movement", which I assume is what you're referring to here when you mention only two of the journals being relevant. I'll copy what I said there: Well, this article is about the manosphere, not just the men's rights movement. Some of these sources focus on the MRM, some on other manosphere groups, and some on the manosphere as a whole. I'm not sure where your claim that only two of these sources mention the MRM is coming from, unless you're only reading the titles—I'm pretty sure that every single one of these papers discusses the MRM in some capacity.

If you really want to start a discussion that gender studies journals are wholly unreliable, you can start another discussion here at WP:RSN; I look forward to replying there to that absurd claim. Otherwise we will continue to follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I will note that the journal you're referring to with your mention of the Grievance studies affair is not among the academic sources used in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Could you please list what information that is being considered for inclusion if this is accepted as an RS in this situation? Arkon (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Information included is: who the men's rights movement are, the issues they are campaigning about, and the opposition they face. It's a good basic intro to what they say. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Too vague for me to give a good opinion. Arkon (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think the film is fine for attributed opinions and views of the films subjects, per WP:RSSELF and WP:ABOUTSELF, as long as those claims are not contentious. As far as I can see from the talkpage, the usage seems to be hypothetical. Can specific examples of sentences of where you would like to use the source be given? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  As TiggyTheTerrible has said above, I believe they wish to reframe the entire article and the definitions of the "manosphere", "men's rights movement", etc. based on that documentary (which would contravene every other source in the article). This is what they did in their first edit to the page: 13. As of yet TiggyTheTerrible has not been able to find a reliable source supporting their point of view, and so is trying to get this documentary accepted as a reliable source to rebut the much higher-quality sources used in the article's current form. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not in Wikivoice, no. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  (Conversation about the scholarly sources moved to Talk:Manosphere#Scholarly sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC))

• Reliable Personally I think the documentary is rather surprisingly well done; it DID make me see the men's rights sphere in a different light- I still do think there are many flaws to be said, but I think the arguments were decent enough and well enough sourced. I watched it about a year ago, I remember jumping on google (lol and wiki) to fact check some of the things presented, and was surprised to see how much was true. I don't think it's all that one sided, nor dishonest. As for 'begging the question, I wouldn't agree...it used a lot of statistics and references to laws/government programs...one might disagree with the interpretation, but that's hardly assuming the truth of the conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.150.142 (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 76.109.150.142 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
• Attribute, do not use as proposed. It is certainly not more reliable than scholarly sources, and should 100% not be used for what TiggyTheTerrible is proposing, but it’s not plain wrong to the degree that it can not be used at all. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable I don't understand why this is even up for debate? The documentary may present points of view that you and I may disagree with but it does not misrepresent anything. We may also both disagree with many Trans-Exclusive Radfems but we won't say that their documentaries are "unreliable" for citation in articles about Radical Feminism. hendrixski (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that hendrixski (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

• Comment Is there canvassing happening here? It's pretty odd for an IP with no other edits (76.109.150.142) and an editor who's not edited in a year (and only edited six times in the past decade) and never previously commented at RSN or at Talk:Manosphere (Hendrixski) to suddenly show up here and argue that the documentary is a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Update: just found that a canvassing request was posted on Reddit: "The Red Pill Movie is up for review as a source. Is it reliable? Why don't you tell them (politely)" GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  I've upgraded this discussion to an RfC to request opinions from a broader section of the community. — Newslinger talk 00:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable except for quotes: It's a documentary that interviews many people relevant to the topic, and so it's reliable as a source for the views of the people in it. However, it's also a documentary by one person who we have no reason to expect any particular editorial rigor from. She directed it, she's the presenter, she appears to own the production company, and it was funded on Kickstarter so she doesn't even really have any pressure to fact-check it from funders. Regardless of any slant, that alone makes it not a reliable source: it's about as reliable as any YouTube video. Loki (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable except for quotes, as above. This is basically a self published source - 'Gravitas Ventures' is a film distributor, not a publisher, and would not have filled any kind of fact checking or editing role. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - The existence of the film is significant, barely, but this isn't the same thing as being reliable. Anything the movie says which is important, quote or not, can be better supported by more reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Not reliable - laughably unreliable, I wouldn't even use it for statements about its own content unless that particular content was noteworthy by inclusion in an RS, in which case use that. AsLokiTheLiar says, this is on the level of a self-published YouTube video with production values - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable as a self-published source by someone who is not recognized as a subject-matter expert. Quotes from the film can be usable as opinion if covered by a third-party RS – basically per Springee. (Ironically, watching the film pushed me more towards feminism than vice versa, but that's beside the point.) feminist | freedom isn't free 17:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable of course not, there are much better available sources including scholarly ones. If an independent source considered more reliable mentions it in a particular context, it could be used to mention it. —PaleoNeonate – 07:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable - can use more reliable sources that talk about the film to the extent including mention of the film makes sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not reliable seems about right here. Quite aside from issues of accuracy, there is an inherent tension between narrative pace and factual nuance. I hope we don't cite Michael Moore films either. Guy (help!) 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Closure challenge

I have challenged the closure of this RfC at User talk:ReyHahn § Your closure of WP:RSN#RfC: The Red Pill Movie. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

ReyHahn has amended the closing statement in Special:Diff/964053113 in response to my challenge. Thank you, ReyHahn. — Newslinger talk 09:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Source: The Life of the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., by Samuel Drew, published 1818 by J. Soule and T. Mason for the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States Link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Life_of_the_Rev_T_Coke_with_an_abstr/FjRfAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA138 Article: George Washington and slavery

Seeking opinions on whether this work constitutes a reliable source generally on the subject of George Washington and slavery. My contention is that it fails pretty much all of the criteria in WP:IRS. It is near contemporaneous, having been published only 19 years after the death of Washington. It is dubious for having been written by a Methodist about a Methodist and for the Methodist Church, on the subject of slavery in the US when slavery was still legal and subject to significant opposition by the Methodists. Also of relevance is the fact that George Washington and slavery is currently a featured article, for which there is an expectation that sources should be high quality, per WP:WIAFA 1c. Thank you.Factotem (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I would say given its age it is dubious as a source for anything (after all if its worthy of inclusion why have not more modern sources taken it up?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it.14 This source by Samuel Drew seems fine to me, but it's superfluous, and we don't need unnecessary controversy and drama here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, what do you do when deliberately misleading information is published about a living person? I have tried to edit, but been blocked. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsmith996 (talk • contribs)

I will reply on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wiley_(publisher)#Controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.213.64.35 (talk • contribs)

• The linked section does not remotely support this action. (☎, ⛏️) Buidhe 09:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not a heavy editor so apologises if this in the wrong place. I am trying to assess the reliable of this site as a source? I notice in one article it is used on - googling it leads to people discussing getting people to write article specifically so they can be used for sources on wikipedia. Is it an actual news source or more of a blog? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Is "6ix9ine’s Persecution Complex Surrounding ‘TROLLZ’ Is Embarrassing—And Hypocritical" by Forbes.com contributor Bryan Rolli a reliable source for the Trollz (song) article? The article is the sole citation for the following text:

Following its release, Forbes's Bryan Rolli criticized 6ix9ine's "desperate attempts to inflate" sales, noticing "there are currently four different versions of the song available for download on iTunes (the original, an alternate edition, and clean versions of both), all discounted to 69 cents. 6ix9ine and Minaj are both selling a slew of music and merchandise bundles, including signed "TROLLZ" CDs, vinyl and hoodies". He also pointed out the three music videos: the official video and the lyric videos for both the original and alternate editions. Rolli concluded that 6ix9ine "exemplifies the willingness to forgive abusers because they're marketable".

— Newslinger talk 11:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable. As concluded in 11 previous discussions, Forbes.com non-staff contributors are the equivalent of self-published sources because they are not subject to sufficient editorial oversight. This lack of editorial oversight has been well-documented by the Columbia Journalism Review, the Poynter Institute, BuzzFeed News (RSP entry), and The Outline. For this particular case, Bryan Rolli is a non-notable freelance journalist that does not claim to have any academic credentials in the field of music (or music business), and is not a subject-matter expert. This case is exacerbated by the fact that the text in question includes claims regarding living people, which puts the text in violation of WP:BLPSPS. Use a reliable source, instead. — Newslinger talk 11:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Unless the contributor themselves is deemed to be an appropriate expert in their field, we have determined all Forbes contributors to be inheriently unreliable for facts. --Masem (t) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Non notable opinion and unreliable per Newslinger Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable Forbes contributors are essentially bloggers so they would need to be an expert in the relevant topic to be considered, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick question: Does this source fall within the parameters of WP:RS?

• Pasley, James. 2019. "Inside Dragon Springs, the high-security compound in upstate New York that's home to a 'cult' tyrannized by China". Business Insider. September 9, 2019. Online.

I'm currently putting together a section for English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article on the group's headquarters, a compound referred to as Dragon Springs in Deer Park, New York. I'm not sure what the status is on Business Insider at this time. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

While I am still curious about the status of Business Insider for these reports, I have added a section using clearly RS sources here: 15. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

As is typical for this article, these additions were promptly scrubbed. The article seriously needs more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The text in question is "A small, Middle Bronze III-Late Bronze Age I fortress with a four-chambered, north-facing gate was unearthed at the site bearing evidence of destruction by fire.¹" in Ai (Canaan). All three authors are creationists and part of the Associates for Biblical Research.16 Stripling's academic affiliation is with the Bible Seminary.17 accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools a creation of the Institute for Creation Research. Byers is a Dean at Trinity Southwest University which is unaccredited. We have an article on Bryant Wood. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure being a creationist disqualifies you in other fields of endeavour. As its a reputable journal and as this must have gone through the usual peer review usable with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it absolutely disqualifies you in any area of history beyond about 1,000 years ago. Guy (help!) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the subject is known as a young earth creationist, that generally makes publications even in peer-reviewed journals subject in terms of WP:FRINGE. That happens all the time in other fringe subject when a fringe scientist manages to get something published, often in low quality or "friendly" journals. Seralini affair comes to mind in the GMO subject, and I'm sure someone more versed in climate change denial could find similar examples. In those cases, it's generally considered best to avoid sources from that person unless corroborated by the largely scholarly community.

Looking at Ai_(Canaan)#Khirbet_el-Maqatir where the text is, I'd probably remove the quoted text with that in mind. I don't see anything the authors doing to easily overcome WP:DUE to be mentioned in the article, especially considering the first paragraph Bryant Wood has proposed Khirbet el-Maqatir, but this has not gained wide acceptance.. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The dig at Khirbet el-Maqatir was licensed by the Israel Antiquities Authority, and the results were published in a respected, peer-reviewed archaeological journal. Regardless of the beliefs of the archaeologists involved, the check-and-balance of these two factors should be enough to let the sentence stand. As the entry originally read, there was very little to describe what was discovered at the site. The sentence that was added brought clarity using a legitimate citation.Wrighteward (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The bigger issue here is that this appears to be fresh results which haven't undergone the scrutiny of more time. If other archaeologists come out and say, "yes, we agree," then I'd be more willing to include this. There is too much in WP of people shoving the latest hot results into an article, only to have them not pan out and there being a struggle to fix that later. Mangoe (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced time is the bigger issue. But for the sake of argument, what would you recommend the minimum amount of time WP editors wait from when an article is published in a peer-reviewed journal until it is able to be used as a citation?Wrighteward (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Time in this sense would mean until it is cited by secondary sources in appropriate context for whatever the content is. That's normally how primary scientific sources are handled. That could mean a few months, or it could mean never. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

At this edit I have copyedited this. The archaeological report appears to be acceptable and the result of many years' work, so I have left in a very brief report of its findings. I have attributed the speculation to its source - an independent report by two of the same authors, for which they give the authority of Bryant Wood's Associates for Biblical Research. This I would regard as reliable only for its own opinions, which is how I've used it. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think time is a factor since this source isn't being used to assert that the article's hypothesis is true. While normally Wood and his associates would not be considered to produce RS, it is used in this article in more of an about-self fashion. In other words, using the Judea and Samaria Research Studies article by them to state that they have made a claim is consonant with our sourcing policies. It's equivalent to using a blog post by some-one to characterize that person's claims. It is not being used to suggest that this is a correct identification and the surrounding context makes it clear that this is an idiosyncratic belief. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The title phrase "might be an RS" intrigued me, so I spent a small amount of time digging (Do you get that one? Archaeology? Digging? You're welcome.) "Judea and Samaria Research Studies" (JSRS) seems to me a minor platform for, as the journal claims, "original research dealing primarily with the regions of Judea and Samaria in the past and present." Only two issues are produced each year. JSRS appears to function largely as an in-house mechanism for faculty based at Ariel University (the publisher) or Bar Ilan University to publish their work: six out of seven of the senior editors and editorial board are based at those two institutions, and the few articles in English are dominated by authors from those same places. Based on the small sample size of articles available to me, the journal seems to be reliable. That said, the unquestionable in-house nature of the editorial staff, and by extension I assume the pool of peer reviewers, likely makes the journal an attractive target for "outsiders" with pseudoscientific agendas to push. I would not be surprised if the paper in question is ultimately retracted, but until that happens I believe we should cautiously treat it as a reliable, primary source. (PS - If anyone reading this is looking for something to do, several of the JSRS editorial board members have enWiki pages that, per WP:NOTCV, require something between substantial and massive trimming). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two sources here, the fringe claim is from the unpublished The " Problem " of Ai in Joshua 7–8 and is of course unusable. The published work Excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir: the 2009–2011 Seasons does not discuss Ai, Israelites or Joshua. Removing the section as the section content is from the unpublished work. fiveby(zero) 21:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sticking to the issue of reliability, a sober account of fourteen years of perfectly mainstream archaeological techniques and findings is, I would suggest a usable primary source. The authors' motivation for doing all this work may be fringe, but that doesn't invalidate their hard factual findings. Perhaps it would be suitable for our currently non-existent article on Khirbet el-Maqatir? The fringe claim is indeed usable only for the fact that the fringe claim is being made. Separately, the whole thing may or may not be sufficiently notable to mention in mainspace, but that's a debate best left to the article's talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, This is like Thompson, Rivara and Thompson writing an article on the history of skull fractures. It might be correct, but you'd have to check every line for copncealed payload. Guy (help!) 22:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

With that in mind, this definitely a case where no one should be trying hard to reach for a primary source simply because it exists. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the article was published in a peer-reviewed journal of an internationally recognized university, it meets rs. Peer review means that experts have reviewed the article and determined that among other things that they are confident in its factual accuracy. They not us determine whether the fact that the authors are creationists makes the article reliable. Sir Isaac Newton was an enthusiastic alchemist, which is a pseudoscience. If he wrote today, chances are that peer-reviewed journals would publish his articles about physics because they would meet the required standards.

I agree somewhat with Kingofaces43 though. We should generally avoid obscure primary sources, regardless of whether they meet rs. but that comes under REDFLAG and WEIGHT. If that's the only place that has published this information, it does not belong in the article.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand the issue. There are two sources involved: one, published describes the works at Khirbet el-Maqatir. It makes no claim of any connection to Ai (Canaan). Another, unpublished and fringe article by the same authors makes the connection. If the published work is usable on WP at all, it can't be used to bolster the fringe claims or describe structures of located at Ai, it does not make any claim that Khirbet el-Maqatir is related to Ai. fiveby(zero) 04:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Several good points here. Indeed, Fiveby has for excellent reasons removed the whole paragraph from the article on Ai. Checking for concealed payload - indeed necessary. I did read the article and it's a careful and sane account of fourteen years of painstaking archaeology. Before we label all issues here as "decided", I wonder if the published work, and the fringe claim, might both reasonably be used in an article about the fringe claims? Specifically, Associates for Biblical Research (Bryant Wood), who claim the fringe material? Rather as our page on Robert V. Gentry uses both self-published fringe material and the RS that he produced. These work together to produce a sad picture, a life wasted in diligent digging down the wrong rabbit hole. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A curious fact about that article is that Ai is not mentioned at all except as a keyword at the start and in the titles of some of the references. Since the identity of Khirbet el-Maqatir with Ai is a cause célèbre for Bryant Wood (not sure about the other authors), the failure to promote that identity again is way out of character. I have a theory I can't prove: the religious Jews who edit the journal wouldn't allow it, perhaps because (this part is true) Wood's theory requires a major revision of Biblical chronology. Be that as it may, since the article does not identify its subject as Ai, it is SYNTH to cite it in Ai (Canaan). Reliable or not. Zero^talk 07:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have views on the reliability of Owler? Our article about the site explains that the content is crowdsourced, and I wonder whether it fails WP:USERGENERATED, which was also my concern when looked at the site itself. My query is prompted by this edit by Steinythefirst. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this too, as the user has been using it as a (naked) ref for company stats on a lot of pages. I don't think that it meets guidelines for a reliable source; there's no provenance or verifiability of the data. I'm going to ask the user to stop adding it to pages until we work this out and decide if it should be removed from all pages. tedder (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Doesn't look as if it meets RS. Guy (help!) 16:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• In general offering “competitive insights” doesn't mesh well with good journalistic practices, the crowdsourced part is just the icing on the cake and due to that I would consider them even less reliable than a normal business information service. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement here then. Does anyone want to help with finding and removing references to this site? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I have quite the backlog, see my user page ;-) Guy (help!) 10:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I was hoping Steinythefirst might offer. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to start doing it, but there are a LOT of them. And yes, it'd be nice if Steinythefirst stepped in. tedder (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. I don't use Owler often, and when I have it has generally been around the competitors listing, not for basic company information. I was about to use it once more, but will refrain in this case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think all of Steinythefirst's additions have now been reverted (thanks to Steinythefirst for stepping in with the last few as I was working through them). There are still other instances to be dealt with though. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Daily Mail fakes own historical front pages --Guy Macon (talk)

Quote from WP:DAILYMAIL: "The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically"

We need to modify our handling of old pages from The Daily Mail to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly suggest removing the text "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context" from WP:RSP, or cautioning also that they literally fake their own historical articles. Never trust the DM - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Instead of using their own historical material, they took the trouble to invent fakes that look "old-timey" (and they buried a vaguely-worded disclaimer four pages down). Do they think that slightly yellowed images won't bring in the clicks? Is fabrication simply their instinctive course of action? In any case, I support David Gerard's suggestion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the Mail may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. buidhe 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.24 --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See 25.

Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

See below - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So we are using a situation source (Boing Boing) to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It would if that were an accurate summary of the above. Fortunately, it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to a source as good as boingboing.net The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The term for it is historical negationism which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is beyond the pale given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- GreenC 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary

www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk