Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 358

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 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 main page.

Archive 355

Archive 356

Archive 357

→

RfC: The Daily Wire

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.

In this discussion, the community re-considers the reliability of the Daily Wire. The discussion has lasted for the requisite period of 30 days. Some editors below opine that useful discussion is still continuing, and they are mistaken. This has been a very long discussion containing many words, particularly from a few editors who are very passionate on this subject, and both sides have exhautively made their case.

The community does not reach consensus to deprecate the Daily Wire. But the community is, very clearly, of the view that the Daily Wire should only be used with great caution. In this discussion editors demonstrate that it is a biased source. Editors show that it selects the stories it covers, it chooses not to mention key points that disfavour its preferred politics, and it blatantly panders to a US conservative agenda. Although this discussion unearths evidence that the Daily Wire has sometimes shown a minimum regard for the truth by printing retractions where these are warranted, the status quo is that the Daily Wire is seen as generally unreliable, and this discussion does not change that. Like any "generally unreliable" source, it should not be used as the sole source for a point of fact, but it can be used with attribution for statements about someone's opinion.

As there is no consensus, I will not change our current wording at WP:RSP. I hope this helps. Questions, comments and feedback about this close should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Question: Should the status of The Daily Wire be changed from Generally unreliable to Deprecated? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire

Option 1: Yes
Option 2: No

Valjean (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey, The Daily Wire

Yes. It is so unreliable, pushes views contrary to many facts of great importance, and lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, that it deserves deprecation with this one exception: can only be used in its own article, and then only if it's not unduly self-serving (per WP:ABOUTSELF). -- Valjean (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
^{[citation needed]} Buffs (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I'm sure other editors will post sources, so I won't bother. When I was doing research on the Palmer Report, academic sources I found frequently labeled the Daily Wire as a junk news source or a fake news source. Daily Wire is a pretty popular source so deprecation is probably a good idea in case an editor mistakenly believes it's a RS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m confused, is the Palmer Report unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Use google please (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Use google please: I modified your indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Palmer Report is a fake news website as per our article. I assume this is why User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d came across discussions of Daily Wire being a fake news website, since they were looking at sources discussing fake news websites which gave Palmer Report and Daily Wire as examples. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Daily Wire has their own journalists division, Palmer Report just post op-eds of Twitter feeds. Use google please (talk) 07:54, September 29, 2021‎ (UTC)
No I'll go by what this NPR piece from July explains well. "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don't normally include falsehoods (with some exceptions), and the site said it is committed to 'truthful, accurate and ethical reporting.' But as Settle explains, by only covering specific stories that bolster the conservative agenda (such as negative reports about socialist countries and polarizing ones about race and sexuality issues) and only including certain facts, readers still come away from The Daily Wire's content with the impression that Republican politicians can do little wrong and cancel culture is among the nation's greatest threats." Add that its aim is towards Facebook engagement and clickbait-style attention grabbers, and that makes it generally unreliable, but not to the point where deprecation seems required. --Masem (t) 05:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No and more appropriately None of the above/Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics. This shouldn't be an RfC in this manner as it's a False dilemma. Many others have requested an upgrade to the source on WP:RSPSOURCES. To frame this statement as such is an attempt to game the system. The same would be appropriately said if someone phrased the initial question as
Should the status of The Daily Wire be changed to Generally Reliable Source or Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable, and may be usable depending on context? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire
- Option 1 Generally Reliable Source
- Option 2 Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable
Buffs (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Example of misleading summaries Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ In fact, click the source and you'll find it is actually "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". Given the breadth of such responses, I question whether these opinions based on sources are mistakes, just highly biased interpretations, or intentionally misleading summaries. Buffs (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes - Noted for publishing blatant falsehoods and medical misinformation about COVID-19, along with rank homophobia and scaremongering worthy of the gay panic defense era. No one has cited any content of redeeming value which would be lost by deprecation. It's a partisan clickbait factory and we can and should demand far more from our sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This is indicative of the kind of issue we're running into. People are citing links (or making a claim without any justification) and/or then giving misleading descriptions of said links:
- blatant falsehoods^{[citation needed]}
- medical misinformation about COVID-19 No where in this article do they allege any misinformation about COVID-19 by Daily Wire.
Please read such links before commenting (yes, even mine!). Such arguments are nothing more than guilt-by-accusation. Buffs (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
An NPR review of stories on The Daily Wire about the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two months found numerous stories about potential side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, but none that portrayed the scientifically demonstrated efficacy of the vaccines or that focused explicitly on the hesitancy that has slowed the U.S. rollout. Disinformation by omission is disinformation just the same. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that NPR didn't look very hard then. Ben Shapiro mentioned the vaccine frequently on his podcast and encouraged people to go and get it frequently for ~the first 6 months of the year. Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, who has been a vocal proponent of vaccination all along, also told his followers today on Twitter, “Get vaxxed. I did. My wife did. My parents did." and has been doing so since late 2020 once vaccines were available. My quick scan of available show notes shows he mentioned it on nearly every show after Jan 22 through 9 Mar and then 2-4 times a week until July. If they didn't find it, it's because they aren't looking. Ex: 2/5 "the vaccine is ninety one percent effective seven days or more after the second injection". Feel free to browse yourself if you don't believe me (not the best transcript, but you can CTRL+F "vaccine" pretty quickly) Buffs (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance here, and I know the Daily Wire is largely Shapiro's outlet, but they are distinct voices, yes? Thus, proof that Shapiro is himself staunchly pro-vaccine is not the same as saying the Daily Wire is? Or am I mistaken about that? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Valid question. Ben Shapiro used to be editor-in-chief of DW. He is now listed as Editor-Emeritus. The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production. Buffs (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
That being the case, it strikes me that both what you say and the NPR story may be entirely true and not in contradiction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm tired of hearing people repeatedly assert on this RSN/RfC that Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine) because Shapiro and DW are just giving lip service while using the vaccine issue as a launch-point to their other agendas; this is a classic DW tactic. Ben Shapiro posted a YouTube of himself launching his #DoNotComply campaign. That video appears to have been removed, and in its place is his organization spokesman, Jeremy Boreing ("co-founder, Co-CEO and god-king of The Daily Wire."); so that covers both the man and his organization. Shapiro and Boreing have directed their company DW to openly and publicly refuse the OSHA mandate and are encouraging other businesses to do the same. They have stated in interviews that they have built up a legal machine, and are ready for a legal war on this point — "we're prepared to go to battle", "we're going to use every method and resource at our disposal to defy" and "we are staffing up right now on the legal side". When they speak of the mandate they brush aside the point where the mandate doesn't actually require everyone get the vaccine, but employees could instead be tested weekly (which nowadays is usually a simple saliva swab). In other words, their actions speak louder than their words. If you listen carefully to their wording, the two men say they are "pro-vaccine" while letting the listener dub in that they meant pro-COVID vaccine. In one breath they give accolades to the Covid vaccine (an object), while a minute later issue subtle snide remarks about those who get it (people). Under their breath they give 2 seconds to briefly mention the 'opt-out with testing' as an option while spending the next 5 minutes ranting about how no one should be required to get a vaccine. Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine, despite what one thinks they heard, so it is time to quit asserting it. Such covert and ubiquitous misdirection is one of the main reasons why DW has earned itself 'generally unreliable' status here on Wikipedia. It should be deprecated at this time. Platonk (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The specifics of such a mandate have not been made public, so your assessment is based on speculation. The rest is accusations with no real evidence to back it up + WP:OR. Weekly testing (even if it is part of the mandate) is still an additional cost with the threat of a $14K fine if they don't. I'm not saying Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine), I'm saying he's outright pro-Covid vaccine and has been since the vaccine was released. There is a wide chasm between saying "I think something is good and you should do it" and "I think the government should force everyone to do what I think is good". If you think Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine because they don't support Biden's mandates, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Buffs: My assessment is based on my evaluation, as is everyone else's. WP:OR doesn't apply because we are discussing DW's status on RSP, not discussing DW, and (most importantly) not editing content in wiki articles. "We" are not trying to have a "reasonable discussion" because WP:NOTFORUM. While I try to keep my comments to why is DW not a reliable source, why should DW be deprecated, how does DW misdirect, etc., you keep trying to argue DW's/Shapiro's points of view. Again... WP:NOTFORUM. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
You accuse me of gaslighting then say I try to keep my comments to why is DW not a reliable source, why should DW be deprecated, how does DW misdirect, etc., you keep trying to argue DW's/Shapiro's points of view? Look one post above where you specifically point out what Shapiro is claiming/doing. Your logic appears to be that you should be able to make such claims, but I can't respond as to how your claim is misleading and/or outright false. Lastly, yes, I am trying to have a reasonable discussion per WP:TALK. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I cannot believe you just posted that what I wrote on Oct 5th came before what I wrote on Sept 29th. That sort of deliberate chronological distortion is described in Wikipedia's behavioral guideline WP:GASLIGHTING, which is part of Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process: "Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord." Cease and desist! Platonk (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
It's clear we cannot have a reasonable discussion without you tossing out ad hominems. I'm done with this. Buffs (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That specific article mentions nothing about medical misinfo about COVID-19 - the specific note to Daily Wire is in reference to the situation during the presidential campaign when Texas citizens had followed a Biden bus out of state, and that article discusses how DW described the situation -- which falls in line with the biased side of presenting the news per the NPR article. Also, having a homophobic stance is not a reason to deprecate a source, though still a very good reason to consider it unreliable. --Masem (t) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes - Prim. per NBSB. It won't take long to find out rank garbage they publish on a regular basis. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No First, Buffs is correct that this is not a good RfC question. Second, deprecation should really be a last resort. It came about because some were concerned that a widely used source was unreliable. Is this source widely used? Third, the only meaningful evidence presented thus far is Masem's NPR article. NPR supports the current ranking of the source and does not support a deprecation. Deprecation is something that really needs to be reviewed as a blunt tool used far too often in cases where there isn't a problem (source was rarely ever used, source was already acknowledged to be poor etc). Springee (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Unreliable for basically any and all matters of fact. It has been known to publish blatant falsehoods. It should be reliable only for matters of completely undisputed facts in its own article, as with other extremely partisan and possible disingenuous sources. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
^{[citation needed]} Buffs (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Unreliable. I would reinforce that it's a generally unreliable source, and mention criticism by climate experts in Climate Feedback, per this RSN discussion, of the Daily Wire's climate change coverage. That was more or less what I had to say at RSP talk, and I guess I'll restate it here for visibility. I mentioned it there because it wasn't present on the source's entry. The conversation there is worth reviewing, as Aquillon seemed to bring a lot more receipts. --Chillabit (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No in the absence of specific information concerning the deliberate biasing of the source. We need to be wary of the use of the source, but we also need to be wary in assuming that a source contains lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Unreliable for the reasons I gave at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (and per others there). Should not be cited for any statement of fact and shouldn't carry weight except when reported on by other, reliable sources. As for deprecation: meh. Abstain (in part per what I wrote below). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Mostly copying-and-pasting my comment from the WP:RSP discussion, but: It does no original reporting and has repeatedly spread misinformation, especially about COVID ([1]) but also eg. the election ([2]), Greta Thunberg ([3]), climate change ([4]), and the George Floyd protests ([5]); academic sources describe it as a low-quality source ([6]) and as unreliable ([7]) and have used it as an example of misinformation and junk news ([8][9][10][11]). The issue isn't simply that it is partisan, the issue is that its purpose is to publish intentionally false stories in order to advance its partisan goals. Academic coverage largely describes it as publishing intentional misinformation, which is the sort of thing that requires depreciation if it seems like there are people still trying to use it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, ^^THIS^^ comment by Aquillion is relevant to your comment above. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire for other comments with documentation from RS. I hope you will reconsider your "no". We must "assume" that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be "a source contains lies." They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  - You keep making the claim "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump..." You need to provide evidence that they "fully back Trump" first. From 2016 to 2021, Daily Wire spoke out against Trump's excesses: Donald Trump is a liar (2016) up to Trump is deeply irresponsible 2021. Your remarks are full of assumptions that aren't backed by the facts. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Aquillion, are you normally in the habit of citing undergrad papers that aren't peer reviewed? Springee (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- As noted below, these particular sources are a perfect example of how such accusations, despite being sourced, are not grounded in the content of the sources:
  - It does no original reporting demonstrably false. The NPR article above states "produces little original reporting", so, by definition, it produces at least some. It largely produces analysis. Likewise, lots of publications don't produce "original reporting".
  - This article is an ungraded undergraduate paper/advocacy piece that equates criticism of the media (regardless of how valid/invalid) as tantamount to blindly supporting Trump, equates asking about the origins of COVID-19 as "COVID misinformation", and speculating/guessing as to what the future impact the virus may have on economics as disinformation. Likewise, more criticism of the media's portrayal of COVID in a negative light with Trump and a positive light with Biden isn't COVID denial/misinformation. It's criticism of the media, which has a known leftward slant.
  - misinformation (about) the election: No where in this article is there any misinformation about the election. They criticized Wallace and Biden. Daily Wire also reported how others called it a "****-show" and that both sides lost calling both sides "a new low" in debate performance. Shapiro himself called it a "[bleep]-show". That's HARDLY misinformation in ANY way.
  - misinformation about Greta Thunberg: One host called her "mentally ill" in an interview and Daily Wire apologized for the comment (as noted). Calling political opponents mentally ill, while distasteful, is not uncommon
  - "misinformation on the climate" from another ungraded undergraduate thesis: In fact, the only thing this paper cites is criticism of the most extreme predictions (example, Al Gore's claim that Miami would be underwater by 2016) Criticizing the extremes is hardly criticizing the core science.
  - misinformation about George Floyd protests There's no misinformation even cited in the article, only criticisms (example, making people in public wear masks, but protestors in closer proximity are not required to do so).
  - one source describes as a low-quality source The same source put it on-par with Daily Kos and labeled it "hyperpartisan" and not "Fake News".
  - one source describes as unreliable Given that you've cited this source now twice despite criticism, I'm forced to believe that you're being misleading intentionally (if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me). No where in this entire article do they use the word "unreliable". Daily Wire is only mentioned once as a pejorative without documentation to back it up: "Relying on nationwide panels of internet users who donate their feeds to the project, it was found that after the Capitol rampage progressive Facebook users were routinely fed mainstream media such as CNN and NPR, whilst conservative users sources considered rather less reliable (such as The Daily Wire and Breitbart most salient)". They do not categorize anything in the article as "unreliable".
  - misinformation and junk news 1 Subscription only; unable to view
  - misinformation and junk news 2 There are two criticisms of Daily Wire. The first criticism is that they wrote an article about tweets of "media figures" who threatened violence. Indeed, members of the media threatened to "burn this place to the ground" and "Burn the entire f***ing thing down". There is nothing inaccurate about this report. The second, verbatim, is "Finally, junk news outlets have also promoted unsubstantiated claims that Democratic Party leaders were pushing conspiracy theories. A Daily Wire article with over 162,000 engagements claimed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had asserted that the Republican party were involved a conspiracy to “come after your children" But if you look at the source material and her full remarks, it's clear that the quotation is completely accurate. Saying "a group is coming after your children!" is or isn't a "conspiracy" is really splitting hairs or is, at a bare minimum, subjective.
  - misinformation and junk news 3 The actual quote: "Friday June 5th, that initially showed a significant drop in unemployment rate from 14.7% in April to 13.3% in May. This was soon corrected by the Department of Labor to 16.3%, and accompanied by a statement that the inaccuracy stemmed from incorrect labelling during interviews...A Daily Wire article with over 87,000 engagements...celebrated Trumps false claims of success...The Daily Wire published a correction article the next day. So the basis for the "junk news" rating is that they reported on the same information and that it was good for Trump, DoL printed a correction, and DW printed a correction. I'm hard pressed to know what a competent news organization should have done otherwise (especially considering every news outlet had to do the same thing).
  - misinformation and junk news 4 Whitmer indeed threatened and extension of "safety measures" and blamed the protesters as the reason she had to do it. Nothing about that statement is inaccurate.
- Your significant over reliance on COMPROP is misguided. First, their definition of "junk news" is "whether their content is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, or commentary masked as news". Daily Wire openly admits they are a conservative news organization and that they do analysis of news from a conservative perspective...that hardly fits the category of "sensationalist", especially looking at the articles you chose to cite. Second, you seem to assume that commentary here equates to evidence that they are "junk news" rather than simply an analysis of what was said on a source they call junk news (two separate categories). Buffs (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  @Buffs: Regarding the paper in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism you were unable to view, the relevant quote (p. 9) is here: "Besides these organizations-specific Facebook pages and groups, Facebook also hosts open groups that are not related to a specific organization, ranging from “news” groups that share and discuss articles containing misinformation from outlets such as Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, to groups dedicated to the sharing of right-wing extremist memes". --Chillabit (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  Chillabit Thanks. So...that's the "proof" it's misinformation? Facebook, the company, hosts open groups and just calls it "misinformation". That's pretty weak. Any reference with that? Who wrote it? Buffs (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  As far as this (and most of your other) complaints go, the point is that, on the whole, high-quality secondary sources classify its output as misinformation, to the point where it is broadly and widely used as an example of a source of that nature. Your personal belief otherwise and your personal arguments that you believe them to be right has no weight or relevance; our evaluation of sources is based on how they are covered - their broad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  Are you saying that an undergrad report or even a masters thesis is something Wikipedia counts as a high quality source? Buffs correctly points out flaws in the sources you provided and notes that they don't prove things like DW was inventing claims. If you were using those sources to prove that the DW shouldn't be "reliable" or "considerations apply" I would totally agree. However, you are arguing they are sufficient to deprecate the source. So what standard do you think is needed to rise (or sink) to the level of deprecation and can you show that DW has passed that line? Springee (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  can you show that DW has passed that line? This question has been answered by multiple people already. At this point you come across like you haven't read the extensive detail already in this discussion section - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  When arguments for deprecation rely solely on disparaging terms, their arguments are no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
No. I originally declined to comment on this particular topic but I've since rethought that decision in light of the evidence presented for depreciation. In particular, while I haven't reviewed every source, those I have reviewed do not say quite what the person citing them believes to say. For instance, this source is presented as saying they present "medical misinformation about COVID". It doesn't do that; instead, it says this "Another article from The Daily Wire with over 150,000 engagements similarly celebrated the intimidation, endorsing the view that these cars were “just showing support”, and derided the Biden campaign’s statements on the issue as having “ripped [into]” the drivers.". This is a statement showing bias and hyper-partisanship, but we do not depreciate solely on those grounds, and we certainly don't interpret this line as stating that DW presents "medical misinformation about COVID" - indeed, the context that it is in is related to the election, not COVID. Meanwhile, the post I am replying to has similar misconceptions; for instance, it presents this source as stating that the Daily Wire is "low-quality", and while it does exactly that, the commenter didn't notice that it classified sources under three headers; "Reliable", "Hyper-partisan", and "Fake News", and that the Daily Wire is classified as "Hyper-partisan" not "Fake News". (Note: This is an argument against using this source for depreciation, not arguing for its use as a source against depreciation, as I have serious concerns about how accurate their classification system is)
Meanwhile, this source which was interpreted as saying that the Daily Wire "spread misinformation about ... Greta Thunburg" states that the Daily Wire also retracted that misinformation; retractions are typically not considered when assessing a sources reliability, as retractions are typically evidence of some sort of functioning editorial process, and thus we can't consider this incident when assessing whether to depreciate or not.

I also looked at this source, which was interpreted as describing the Daily Wire as "unreliable"; what it states is "considered rather less reliable", and makes no statement on its own about reliability. Instead, it sources to this article on The Markup, which also makes no claim about reliability, and instead describes it as "conservative news coverage".

As such, I have no choice but to !vote "No"; as the evidence presented in supported of depreciation does not actually say what those citing it believe it says; if I have misinterpreted a given source, or if there is a particular source that I have not looked into that I should, please let me know, but as matters currently stand I see additional restrictions on the use of this source as unwarranted. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate. The Daily Wire knows slightly better than to push conspiracy theories itself directly; instead, it promotes the promoters of the conspiracy theories rather than stating them in editorial voice. e.g. vaccine refusers [12][13][14], promoting ivermectin for COVID [15], and election recount conspiracies [16]. I found these in a few minutes just by typing common conspiracy subjects into the search box; that Daily Wire's promotion of nonsense showed itself so rapidly strongly suggests a deeper dive would only find more. It pitches itself to the audience keen for discredited nonsense; its purpose is to promote false stories to advance partisan goals. Aquillion nails it also. Any newsworthy content on the Daily Wire is a reblog - most of the articles are reblogs of more credible sources. There is no gain whatsoever in using Daily Wire as a source in Wikipedia, beyond the most basic sparing WP:ABOUTSELF appropriate to a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Literally all of your summaries are misleading (which is a problem throughout this discussion). Every single thing you find wrong here is simply a statement of fact, not advocacy. They aren't "promoting false stories to advance partisan goals." If it is, the media are all doing the same thing:
[Nikki Minaj is anti-vax? everyone reported that. Founder of DW Ben Shaprio encourages people to get vaccinated on a nearly daily basis on his podcast and has done so since they became available

[Some in GOP oppose women in the draft? This was widely reported too

BLM opposes 'racist' vaccines? This was widely reported too

this does not promote ivermectin it only reports that Joe Rogan used it. NPR did the exact same thing. Both articles pointed out that the FDA discourages this use.

promoting election recount conspiracies? Hmm, it seems that many reputable sites also reported what happened. DW opposed Trump's election shenanigans almost from the beginning

Any newsworthy content on the Daily Wire is a reblog Literally every article you cited was written by a DW staff member, not reblogged.

In short, what you've written is completely misleading. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate Daily Wire has fallen over the cliff into outright conspiracy and disinformation. No respect and no reputation for fact-checking, the exact opposite in fact... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Please provide sources for such an accusation. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate Nothing reliable about it these days. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No. According to the NPR article cited by Masem it's biased but doesn't normally include falsehoods. I looked at the purported misinformation examples provided by Aquillion and I'm not convinced. The George Floyd-related examples are "one Daily Wire article ... disparaged New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for for allowing public gatherings to protest but not allowing businesses to open or religious gatherings to occur" and "a Daily Wire opinion piece even defended the US record on race, stating that it was “the only civilization in history to oppose racism and for one reason only: Christianity”". The Covid-related misinformation is DW hosts' opinions from February 2020. In the hindsight we can definitely say that there were wrong but it doesn't make it misinformation. Just to remind, "unreliable" status means that "the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person," it's not clear at all why the deprecation is necessary. Alaexis_¿question? 19:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
See Buffs's review of evidence provided by Aquillion. Unlike me he's looked at every claim and none of them constitutes misimformation. It's either mistakes that are promptly corrected or opinions. Alaexis_¿question? 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate. I was engaged in a project to evaluate the use the Daily Wire citations in Wikipedia, locating them using this search tool [17]. At the start, there were about 125 articles containing a link to dailywire.com. Today, there are 41. In my work, I found that most of the DW citations were used as a citation alongside one to five other non-DW-citations and the DW citation was therefore unnecessary (I would remove the DW citation). In others, I found that the DW article itself contained links to other articles published by those not on RSP which could serve just as well (I would replace the DW citation with the better source). After reading many DW articles, I found DW to be very opinionated (bad), partisan (not necessarily bad), and it had a hardcore agenda (very bad) in most of its articles. Often, the author would take some minor point from an entire scene/incident/issue and rag on just that one point to the detriment of coverage. Under no circumstances could one view these articles as "news" or "news coverage". It was pure editorializing. Sure, some of those articles weren't "technically" wrong for the precise reason that the author was quoting someone else (often of marginal reliability), however by forwarding false or mostly false or heavily skewed viewpoints, then adding its own opinions, I agree that Daily Wire should be treated with no more value than any other non-subject matter expert's personal opinion... which we consider a primary self-published source with very limited use as a citation in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are those editors on Wikipedia that don't understand the meaning of GUNREL and think that leaves open a door to using Daily Wire (and other GUNREL sources) as citations as long as they use inline attribution. I support deprecating. Platonk (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I found that most of the DW citations were used as a citation alongside one to five other non-DW-citations and the DW citation was therefore unnecessary (I would remove the DW citation). So, the DW citation was accurate? When you eliminate all examples where DW was completely accurate, you're going to be left with any/all instances where they are either appropriate or questionable. Effectively, you've created the logic to support your own circular argument: "References from DW aren't accurate, so I eliminated references. This shows they aren't accurate." Buffs (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buffs: Your logic is faulty. RSP said Daily Wire was a "generally unreliable source" (GUNREL), therefore replacing a Daily Wire citation with a different reliable source citation is quite appropriate. Per REFBOMB it is neither appropriate nor desirable to have multiple citations following a simple statement in an article. With multiple citations after a single sentence (one of which was a GUNREL), I wouldn't even need to read the GUNREL article to see if it was accurate or not. I would only need to read one other citation to ensure that it was an appropriate source to support the content, and then I could delete the GUNREL citation without any further evaluation of it. An editor "improving citations" in an article per Wikipedia guidelines is not proof of anything you assert here, nor earlier. And your statements that my removing GUNREL citations out of Wikipedia amounts to a 'war against conservatives' is ludicrous and a personal attack. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The only person using the word "war" here (repeatedly) is you. Likewise, I didn't say removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate in any way. I said citing your own actions to support those actions is a circular rationale. Buffs (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, yes indeed, you repeatedly asserted that "removing citations was ~~appropriate or~~ inappropriate". You've asserted that numerous times over the last several weeks. Here are merely three of the diffs I found on this, but I recall reading much more: (1) "Your "project" appears to be a personal vendetta." (You were referring to my project to remove GUNREL refs), (2) "When ALL conservative opinions are labeled “unreliable”, you’ve completely lost neutrality." (Part of your debate that RSP labels as 'generally unreliable' more conservative outlets than liberal ones, thus skewing Wikipedia's NPOV), and (3) "You don't get to suppress conservative views" (as you reverted one of my edits). On top of those were the edit wars over swapping out or removing GUNREL cites. Platonk (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
This is again getting rather personal and off-topic. You are (intentionally?) misconstruing my remarks. I stand by my assertion that "I didn't say removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate in any way" as a general statement. Removing citations or any sort of edit can be appropriate or inappropriate. My statement was intending to show that I never made such a blanket assertion that "removing citations is inappropriate". My issue was not so much that you removed the citation, but that you removed the content as well; that's what my edit summary addressed. It wasn't just remarks cited on DW either (pretending otherwise is disingenuous). Your "project" was self-appointed and you not only removed citations, but you assigned a claim of being false to such assertions and removed not only the citation, but the content as well. Calling your desired goals a "project" doesn't make them any more/less correct and to choose to do so is a personal choice. Yes, I reverted your citation removal to replace the content, which was inappropriately removed. Lastly, your baseless accusations are not appreciated. Buffs (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate, for the reasons stated by Aquillion and Platonk. John M Baker (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No but with a caveat: The Daily Wire grossly quotes without appropriate context “Lawn Boy” by Johnathan Evison. Here is The Daily Wire Quote: “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d***? What if I told you I sucked it? I was ten years old, but it’s true. I sucked Doug Goble’s d***, the real estate guy, and he sucked mine too.” (redaction of words in source), along with a more full quote. Now, here’s the bit that’s deceptive: They do not clarify that both the kid and Dick Goble were young at the time (another quote from the book they neglected to mention: “eight or nine other kids, including my hero, Doug Goble”), and the part they quoted, in isolation, certainly strongly implies that the book shows an adult (“Real estate guy”) having oral sex with a 10-year-old kid. While the quote from the book was accurate, quoting just the passage without a more full context makes things look worse than they are. That said, since they did accurately (albeit without enough context) quote the book, it was not a bald face lie. I reserve deprecation for straight up dishonest or fabricated content (for example, Rolling Stone is merely “Generally unreliable” even though they allowed two out right fabricated stories to be published in the last seven years). Samboy (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
But it's worse than that. The source starts off with "found that books graphically depicting pedophilia" which is in Daily Wire's voice. They then go on to quote someone who appeared before the board "Both of these books include pedophilia, sex between men and boys". While they only presented the latter as a quote rather than their own voice, they do not clarify that the person they're quoting was simply wrong at least about one of the books. Indeed when taken together with the earlier bit, it's quite likely most readers will think that according to the Daily Wire, the book includes "sex between men and boys" even before they see the bit from the book they quote latter. They then go on to quote parts in a way which further re-enforces this view. As you've acknowledged no where do they make it clear that the scene they're discussing involved a recollection of something that happened between two children. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Didn't really catch this until now, but they mention other books...and a quote of that book. Perhaps it's in those. Without clear context, it's hard to know. Buffs (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
For the record, “generally unreliable” means that we almost never use the source, and that claims which only come from the source can be deleted or marked “citation needed” (with very few limited exceptions). I recently deleted a contentious BLP-violating claim sourced from Rolling Stone; now that Rolling Stone is “generally unreliable” for political and WP:BLP claims, no one contested my removal of the questionable claim. Samboy (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
NO - Deprecation is overkill. Usage should continue to be limited, but not deprecated. The Daily Wire is an opinion source, not a news outlet. As such, it is reliable as a primary source for attributed statements as to the opinions of its contributors, but not for unattributed statements of fact. Whether a specific opinion should be included in a specific article is a function of DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. Usage is subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate, per resources provided above. Too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion, not enough news. Anything worth covering would be covered by much better sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Deprecating a source for having "too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion" is a rather extreme and hostile position to be taken, and begs the question that other sources including those on the left with extreme opinion pieces should simply be removed too (which I don't think we want). Tagging the source as "generally unreliable" and using WP:UNDUE to consider if TDW's opinion is worth inclusion (which given its stance likely never would be in most cases) is sufficient and avoids having the same question of deprecation on this basis of being a bad opinion being used to question other sources. Deprecation should only be used when we know the source fundamentally misreports/falsifies information to be completely unusable like Daily Mail. --Masem (t) 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  - It's not worth it having DUE / UNDUE discussions as suggested, about a fundamentally unsuitable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    - I can absolutely see TDW being used in an RSOPINION manner alongside other conservative sources (Fox, etc.) if there is a section on a controversial topic that is weighing liberal press opinions against conservative press opinions - though in the larger picture of things, such sections heavily weighing press commentary from either side would likely be a problem under RECENTISM. But as Blueboar states, deprecation should only be used for fundamental flawed sources that are known for outright fabrication of news to the point of being flat out unusable in any context. --Masem (t) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
      - Who are the Daily Wire authors who may fall under RSOPINION in your view? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        I'll let Masem answer for himself, but, to throw my opinion in, Shapiro would probably be the most prominent example. His podcast is top ten on Apple podcasts and has significant exposure. He'd be on par with Hannity (whom I despise). Buffs (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        Ooooh! That doesn't help. In a list of "people as sources", Hannity and Shapiro would be near the top of those we can only use in their own articles. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        I am absolutely not saying this must be used, I'm only pulling an example that is an opinion but not Shapiro but that would fit the type of RSOPINION that TDW would be suitable for potential inclusion in discussion of one side of the views related to cancel culture via these series of opinions [18] at TWD (Parts 1, 5, and 6 specifically marked "Opinion", the others would be unusable under the current "generally unreliable"). There are of course many other "Opinion" authors at TDW that aren't Shapiro on other topics. But there are also a lot of other factors that have to be considered in context of where they would be used, what other sources are used in support of the same viewpoint as well as those in counter-points, etc; just being an opinion piece in TDW absolutely does not mean we should include it because of all the complicating factors that an UNDUE analysis would have to consider. --Masem (t) 18:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        That's pretty much all I'm looking for for such usage. Perhaps "The View" would have been a better comparison. Both shows are highly opinionated. But they are notable for the reach they have and the general points of view that are discussed as part of the public political dialogue in America. Citing them for what they said should not be controversial. It serves as both a primary source ("yeah, Ben said that" or "yeah, Whoopi said that") as well as evidence that their dialogue was widely disseminated (both shows have a substantial base viewership) and, in general, is representative of the views of their political persuasion. I'm NOT looking to have any DW article as the source for some wild claim. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        You seriously want to compare Daily Wire to The View? The View is a show that has been running for 25 years on a 73-year-old commercial broadcast television network. DW is merely 6 years old. The View has multiple hosts at any one time, with a mix of people from both sides of the political spectrum in each show and tries to present and discuss all angles. DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint. I'm not promoting The View (I don't like it and don't watch it), but even I know that V and DW are worlds apart. Platonk (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        Yes, seriously. People espousing political views/perspectives...that's pretty much DW in a nutshell too. They invite debates and discussion with all kinds of views on their audio and video programs, for example, the Sunday Special: Vox Founder Matthew Yglesias John Stossel (staunch libertarian) Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic Magazine), as well as tons of debates you can find on YouTube (some under the Daily Wire banner and some are under Turning Point...I'm referring to the former). DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint treating all conservative views as some sort of monotone monolith is part of the problem here. They are not all the same. Ben Shapiro, for example, is highly pro-vaccine, Jewish, and has TONS of criticism of Trump, his policies, and his treatment of the election results. Contrast this with people like Hannity who are practically Trump yes-men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
        With due respect, it seems to me there's conflation occurring again here. In response to "the Daily Wire only has one view," you respond "conservative thought is diverse." Both propositions may be true. Perhaps there are diverse views at the Daily Wire, but you're not actually making that argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
        Actually, I am making exactly that argument and just pointed out multiple long-form discussions hosted by DW where libertarian, liberal, and other voices were welcomed. Shapiro's positions, as demonstrated, are in stark contrast to remarks above "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be 'a source contains lies.' They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies" which literally being used to support deprecation based on the idea that anyone agreeing with Trump about anything should be deprecated. Others at Daily Wire (Boering, for example) choose not to get vaccinated and have explained that, because they are healthy and are willing to accept the consequences if they get the virus, they shouldn't be required to take it which is in opposition to Shapiro's stance. I can go through dozens of different points where different hosts/components of DW differ. But the point is that they are indeed a diverse group of ideas and do not all subscribe to "one view". Buffs (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
        
        Besides Shapiro, who else? I'm trying to understand how WP:RSOPINION applies here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
        K.e.coffman, I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Masem, but here's my understanding, using some examples.
        
        All content (and that is literally ALL!!!) at Wikipedia must be based on RS with only ONE exception, WP:ABOUTSELF. That allows, sometimes in exceptional cases, the use of even blacklisted sources in a bio article about themselves, and nowhere else. (That's how we can document the "sum of all human knowledge" for conspiracy theories, lies, pseudoscience, etc.) IOW, for example, Trump (one of the least reliable people known) cannot be cited anywhere but in his own article, unless RS have quoted him (and they do because he is notable), in which case a RS can be used to cite him in other articles. The RS may be giving that content due weight.
        
        If it weren't for WP:ABOUTSELF, we could never cite someone who has no regard for truth, and/or habitually spews lies, and/or misleading propaganda, and/or pseudoscientific nonsense all the time. That applies to people like Trump, Giuliani, Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, Jones, Mercola, Tenpenny, and maybe even Shapiro. (I'll let you judge which might apply to each, and RS do have plenty to say about their lack of reliability.) We couldn't use primary sources or an unreliable source like The Daily Wire to cite them. OTOH, we could cite them if a RS cited them because the RS may be used to judge due weight.
        
        I obviously disagree with some of what I think (I may be wrong) Masem has said above. If something in The Daily Wire is not found elsewhere in a RS, then it doesn't have enough due weight for mention in any other place than the TDW and/or Shapiro article. Other contributers at TDW should write for reputable sources if they want to get mention here. The fact they write for TDW shows very poor judgement. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, so take the above with a grain of salt. I'm sure someone can come up with some form of exception. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
        To be clear, if TDW is the only one, or one of a very few number of sources that would fall into the usable RSOPINION class that opine on a minority viewpoint, then yes, per UNDUE, we should not be including them at all. But if TDW is in general broad agreement with a large body of other opinion sources (but with there own specific takes in a few places) - this is why I used cancel culture as an example where a body of opinions that bemoan cancel cancel readily exist that coverage of that view is not UNDUE - then it should be a reason to consider, but that's only a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion of TDW's opinion. A plethera of other factors related to RSOPINION and other factors come into play at that point.
        
        What is key towards my argument (in that I support maintaining "generally unreliable" and opposed making it "deprecated") is that none of the evidence above shows the same types of problems that works like The Daily Mail or with state-owned works like RT to make us even doubt the veracity of their opinion pages. We can argue their opinion is very unlikely to be used in any reasonable WP article, and that's a completely fair assessment, as I agree the threshold to include TDW would be rather high. But there's no reason to pre-emptively say we can never use it based on the evidence given - nothing suggests the Daily Mail-type problems, and the sources that try to discuss TDW in depth do speak to its bias problems but attempts to stay factual. All that to me points to treating similar to Fox News, with very delicate hands but not hands off. --Masem (t) 01:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
        Masem hits the nail on the head. Use of it could be easily used to show a general or notable ATTRIBUTED opinion on a subject. Deprecating it feels spiteful. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Deprecate per Aquillion and Platonk above. Cheers, all, and happy Tuesday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Option 1 without doubt major conduit for new right disinformation (while masquerading as libertarian source with "objective slant"). Acous mana 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
No The current status is already an over-generalization, and this would make it even worse. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Deprecate　ー　The examples provided here are sufficient. The Daily Wire's tabloid language is consistently deceptive. Arguments that it is technically not fake news are either pedantry or sophistry. Any opinions published by this website would almost always require reliable independent sources contextualizing why those opinion are encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I think Buffs has done a really good job showing that the examples are really poor. They may show extreme opinion but nothing that rises to the level of deprecation. At the same time the generally respected Adfontes media puts three DW is a bucket similar to Salon. There is a serious disconnect between what sources say vs what editors feel. Springee (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting how you present what you "think" as being in a different category from what other editors "feel". Almost like "facts don't care about your feelings"? The examples, and my own eyes, are sufficient for me to conclude that this outlet is extremely misleading. These opinions are not "extreme" in the same way that saying "pop tarts are a sandwich" is extreme, they are extreme in how they ignore very important context that would undermine their own ideological positions, and they are extreme in how they phrase things in an emotive, misleading way while pretending to be dispassionate and "rational". This is a form of fake news, and this set of tactics is a constant from this outlet. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, since it's been mentioned twice now, I will mention that Ad Fontes Media is not generally reliable on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP. If you want to make the case that it's "generally respected", you have your work cut out for you, but that's clearly a separate discussion. I don't respect Ad Fontes Media, neither for this discussion, nor in general. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Just a constatation, but I noticed that the position changes depending on the chart version/year. In 2018 it was "extreme/unfair representation of the news", "hyper-partisan right". —Paleo Neonate – 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
^{[citation needed]} Buffs (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Version 4.0 of the chart —Paleo Neonate – 07:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Literally the majority of Buffs' responses were "nu-UH, I think this source is wrong." Come on. It's a list I threw together rapidly from a Google Scholar search, and I'll grant that there's some stuff in there I wouldn't put in an article, but there's a ton of really solid stuff there, too. "I don't agree with this peer-reviewed paper's definition of misinformation" or "I, personally, think the Daily Wire was right here even if this academic source says it was misinformation" is not a meaningful argument. Overall I presented a solid snapshot showing that academia largely views the Daily Wire as a source of politically-motivated misinformation, and I stand by that assessment. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
No, I stated that your conclusion was wrong based on faulty analysis of the given information. "It's a list I threw together rapidly from a Google Scholar search" alone sort of proves my point. You created an amalgam of links that didn't support the conclusions you drew. It appears you simply assumed they did (i.e. "this article shows it's fake news" when, in fact, it mentions Daily Wire, also has "fake news", but doesn't connect the two. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Not reliable. Do not deprecate. The DW does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. However, they are making efforts in that direction. They do have a corrections policy[19] and have corrected their articles [20][21][22][23][24][25]. In light of this, deprecation would be going too far at this time. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate DailyWire aggregates items from other sources, rewriting to fit an agenda. There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items. DW can not be treated as a Reliable Source because the chain of newsgathering editorial control is broken: in other words, as an aggregator, they can not supervise their content creators (unlike, for example, the AP, or CBS, or TBS, or BBC, or WP, or CT, or... <I'm being US centric here, but those are media sources I know>). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
More guilt by accusation? They do original reporting too (note above). Quoting someone and giving analysis/opinion is not the same as "rewriting to fit an agenda". Likewise, There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items? Really? Media bias for DW is assessed as "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". What's your source? Buffs (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It is "assessed" by an unreliable blog. As I mentioned above, Ad Fontes Media is not reliable, nor is it particularly trustworthy. Its methodology is shallow and inconsistent and the premise itself is simplistic. Taking political compass memes too seriously is a bad idea, for several reasons. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It's hardly an "unreliable blog", but ok. Here's another that labels it as "questionable", but (explicitly) not "Fake News" as described above. [26] Buffs (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:MBFC is Generally Unreliable for Wikipedia. I also urge you to stop WP:BADGERing literally every person in this discussion that doesn't agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd urge you to stop exaggerating to make your points. I've hardly responded to literally every person in this discussion that doesn't agree with [me]. I've been selective. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
No Changing the status does nothing to improve articles. Under the current rating, no article in the publication would be considered reliable unless it was written by an expert, that is, someone who had papers about the topic published in the academic press. It's like killing a cockroach with a cruise missile. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes – there can't be any possible reason to use this source, with the WP:ABOUTSELF exception mentioned by Valjean. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes The fact that occasional valid content appears is irrelevant. If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Re "endless pointless discussions"... For two weeks I've been watching this relentless campaigning about Daily Wire initiated by Buffs. I wish he'd give it a break. He started in on it on my User talk page (Sept 15), edit warred on an article (Sept 15-Sept 17), argued more at the article's talk page (Sept 17-Sept 19), on another editor's user talk page, and even more on his own talk page (Sept 17). I watched two editors get temporary blocks, and witnessed one ridiculous marathon ANI (Sept 16-17). After 48 hours of watching the biggest wiki BATTLE I've ever witnessed, I made an about-face and walked away from all the drama. I have ignored him since then, until I noticed Buffs tried three times in under 24 hours to unilaterally remove Daily Wire from WP:RSP on Sept 26-27 (1st, 2nd, 3rd removals). And so here we are. Platonk (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
We should avoid tying issues related to behavior of a single editor to the assessment of reliability of a website. Just because one bad seed pushed a specific website in an inappropriate manner does not necessarily make that website a bad website - though it is possible that a separate evaluation of that website not tied to that editor will reveal faults. --Masem (t) 12:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, when you slant it like that. How about "A few people had a disagreement. Buffs tried multiple options (including attempting one-on-one discussions as required in a collegial discussion until it was clear that nothing was going to be gained. After having insults hurled at him and removing them from his talk page and despite CLEAR guidance that it was allowed, he was blocked, so he reached out for help. He also noticed that a summary on WP:RSP was placed unilaterally by an IP address and reverted it. Another editor who swore he wouldn't interact with me ever again, then proceeded to simply undo anything I'd done and then placed a rigged RFC here (both options get what he wants and doesn't address anything I brought up...and refused to add any more options/allow a different RfC)?" Reasonable people can disagree. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm a problem. You don't have to be here if you don't want to be.

If y'all are going to disparage/badmouth me on a public page, the least you could do is tag me. Calling discussions and disagreements "ridiculous" is absurd. So is calling me "one bad seed". Buffs (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I was merely responding to SPECIFICO's remark ("If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication.") with an example of such endlessness which was actually related to this discussion. There is no need to go into long defenses and extend said endlessness. This RSN/RfC is quite enough, and I hope it's the last I see of this topic. Platonk (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
You were not "merely responding" and you know it. You took a chance to have one more jab at me/chance to needle me when it wasn't warranted in the slightest. If you don't want to see this topic, you don't have to look. Buffs (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Buffs: Knock it off! Your style of writing towards me on this topic has not been merely uncivil, but has been dismissive, overbearing, bullying... and ongoing. That's the umpteenth time you've told me I could walk away instead of dealing with your tendentious behavior. Knock off the BATTLE and PA and stick to the subject matter. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Let me see if I can summarize how I see this portion going:
SPECIFICO !votes "yes" and cites his reason as "If not, we'll have endless pointless discussions"

You respond with, effectively, yes, "Buffs is a terrible editor and here's why" (paraphrased) with a lengthy list of gripes/exaggerations about me including descriptors like "relentless campaigning", "I wish he'd give it a break", "he started it on my talk page", "edit warred", "argued more", "the biggest wiki BATTLE I've ever witnessed", "[argued] even more on his own talk page". You then say you "walked away from all the drama", disparaged my edits (which I think reasonable and hardly "unilateral" any more than the previous addition in the first place by an IP who was clearly trying to hide their real identity) and attempts at a compromise, and lastly tried to frame that as "here we are...[this is all his fault]"

None of that was necessary and was pretty much a repeat of what you tried to (unsuccessfully) bring up at WP:ANI. It doesn't have any bearing on this RfC and you made it highly personal for no reason. Buffs (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Buffs: This RfC is not a war against you even though you keep framing it as one. See WP:USTHEM. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Only one person here keeps referring to this as a "war against <anything>" here and it isn't me. Buffs (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate. Per Aquillion and David Gerard. Any content from DailyWire is better sourced elsewhere. Cedar777 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes Sometimes when I'm bored I listen to the various Daily Wire podcasts. Even though they word things differently, it would be completely wrong to say they have differing opinions. 99% of the time it's all just the same disinformation but re-packaged for a different audience depending on the podcast. In the 1% of cases where it isn't there's better sources to get the information anyway. So no big lose. That said, people could probably make the same argument for MSNBC and them endlessly repeating "the walls are closing in" on Trump over the Russia thing, but whatever. This isn't an RfC about MSNBC. If it was, I'd probably vote the same way. In the meantime though, DW should clearly not be used as a reference for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment WP:Deprecated sources seems to be at odds with the general direction of this RfC. Reading that information page i get the impression that Daily Wire would be de facto deprecated and the question would be ...often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki... vs. instruction creep. SPECIFICO and Platonk's arguments would then be most relevant. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail deprecation RFC came about because it was a clearly terrible source, but some editors insisted it was excellent and insisted on using it anyway; this meant there was a genuine dispute over the matter. This is the same reason this RFC exists: an editor insisting at length, in multiple venues, over weeks, that it's a quality source in the face of the evidence it isn't. This could be treated as an editor issue - the dispute did make it to the admin noticeboards - but it's arguably useful to weigh it up as a sourcing issue - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  - True, @David Gerard:. I'm exhausted from all that 'insisting' even though I wasn't even participating in all those discussions. Was there an ANI I missed? I'm only familiar with two that the 'insister' filed on other editors who had been trying to set them straight on the GUNREL status of Daily Wire. Platonk (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    - And in the meantime this has sat for two weeks without response? deprecate fiveby(zero) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
      - @Fiveby: I'd forgotten all about that one. BTW, you might want to change your 'comment' to a !vote, if you want it counted (from within this wall-of-text RfC). Platonk (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
No: there is a lot of reaching and exaggeration in the comments above, unfortunately. I was perfectly willing to be convinced that the source should be deprecated, but no-one has actually presented concerns strong enough for this very severe outcome. Note that my comment is not a comment either way about whether the Daily Wire should be categorised as "Generally unreliable" or recategorised, just opposition to deprecation. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Bad RfC. Now some administrators are interpreting "deprecate" as "can be added to spam-blacklist" so all RfCs with this word can be used for more than deprecating. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Peter Gulutzan, who is doing that? Please provide the diff. Regardless, we do not make decisions based on abuse, misuse, or misunderstandings. The exceptional misuse should not affect our decisions or this process, so please strike or reword your comment. -- Valjean (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  - Valjean: here, here, and I think I'm allowed to disagree with you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Update: I edited my original comment to strike out quote marks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
    - Peter Gulutzan, I need actual diff(s) to the single edit(s), not to the whole thread. Those are to threads about ancient-origins.net, so I don't understand what's going on or how it relates to The Daily Wire. (BTW, of course you're allowed to disagree with me!! No problemo. My point still stands, that rare exceptions shouldn't dictate general actions. -- Valjean (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
      Valjean: One has to read more than one post in the thread to see that the request was deprecation and the result was spam-blacklist. You choose to believe the administrators' actions were exceptional, that's not how I interpreted their remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
      Hi Peter. I only searched for mention of The Daily Wire and didn't fiind it, so didn't read any further. So, if I understand you correctly, some admin(s) responded to a request for deprecation of some source with blacklisting it? Is that what happened? Was that website comparable to TDW? -- Valjean (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      
      Also, I see no indication anywhere that there is any danger that TDW would be blacklisted. There is no cause for concern. -- Valjean (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      It is correct that the suggestion was deprecation and the result was adding to the spam blacklist. The administrators gave no advance indication. So I will regard pro-deprecation RfCs as causes for concern. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Is there any recent deprecation RFC that you've participated in and not claimed is a "bad RFC"? You may be opposed to deprecation in general, but RFCs for such were validated by an RFC on that topic on this page. Your continuing claims that clearly valid RFCs are bad is getting tendentious, and don't appear to have convinced anyone - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, October 3, 2021‎ (UTC)
  David Gerard: As far as I can see in WP:RFC, there is nothing that obliges me to comment on this RfC in a way that you prescribe. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  David Gerard, that was an unnecessarily personal remark that really has no place on WP discussions. I, for one, don't find the argument to be having this RfC in this manner to be very convincing and several others have expressed similar concerns below. Buffs (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate. Not reliable on facts. Gerntrash (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
No This is a pointless question which has wasted a lot of editor effort. If it's generally unreliable we can quote people for their opinions or in the remote event an expert writes an article for facts. If it's deprecated, we can't. Can someone explain how making this change improves the encyclopedia? TFD (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Based on your comment and others it seems what's really unreliable is WP:Deprecated sources. If i can't rely on that page for help as to Acceptable uses of deprecated sources and What deprecation is and isn't what should i be looking at? fiveby(zero) 14:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
No. The assessments of the highest quality secondary sources that have been cited in this discussion (e.g. NPR, Adfontes' Interactive Media Bias Chart) are not consistent with deprecation. Colin M (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Since Ad Fontes is unreliable per WP:RSP, it is not accurate to list it as one of the highest quality sources. As for NPR, it also says But The Daily Wire has turned anger into an art form and recycled content into a business model.[27] That shows that this outlet has a negative reputation from its journalistic peers. If this content is at best repackaged from elsewhere with an unreliable political slant, then there is no reason to cite this outlet instead of the more reliable original source. This matches other deceptive or clickbait outlets which have already been deprecated. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The most recent RSN discussion on Ad Fontes seems to suggest that people consider it useful for assessing sources (i.e. what we're doing right now) but not appropriate to cite in mainspace articles for the purposes of supporting claims about the bias/reliability of publications. Colin M (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I get what that discussion is aiming at, but it appears to be an attempt at a compromise. Ad Fontes's presentation is more glossy and respectible-seeming than some alternatives, but the underlying content is opaque, subjective, and pseudoscientific. It lacks a positive reputation as a source itself. If it's not reliable for articles, why, exactly is it supposed to be useful for us here? Is it do as we say, not as we do? Regardless, if it's not even reliable, than it's definitely not a high quality source, even for evaluating other sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, deprecate. Aquillon and David Gerard give ample sourcing of the DW lying, and nobody on the no side since appears to be able to offer anyone but their opinion that lying is not lying or doesn't count somehow. Even some of the sources given to counter that the DW was lying prove that they were lying: for example, when the DW says BLM activists led a protest on Monday at Carmine’s Italian Restaurant in New York City after a hostess denied entry to three black women last week because they would not provide proof of vaccination, Buffs cites to bolster this story a story by Newsweek (itself a marginal source) which said in a story published the same day It later emerged that the three women had provided documentation of COVID-19 vaccinations. This detail fundamentally changes the story, and this all happened weeks ago, ample time to correct the article. Loki (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. As stated at WP:DEPS, "Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question." As shown in previous discussions and above, this is not a reliable source. I am persuaded by evidence of their dishonest reporting, and unpersuaded by defenses of the same. No one denies that the majority of their conent is, as a matter of their practice, easily sourcable in other places. We should deprecate to save editor time, raise awareness, and better inform our readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
By that logic, we could deprecate most media as virtually every story is rebroadcast multiple times. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
You got me! I am indeed advocating for the deprecation of all media. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No As demonstrated my others yes it is unreliable but not to the extent that deprecation is required. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
No per Masem and Buffs above. The cited NPR source, for instance, demonstrates that if anything, TDW ought to be upgraded: "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don't normally include falsehoods". Sure, NPR follows up with all kinds of opinionated fear, uncertainty, and doubt, as is its wont, but the stark assessment remains: the source is as reliable as any other media. XavierItzm (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No per adoring Nanny. This fits in the "generally unreliable" category, but as noted above, they do see to publish corrections, but I would still consider them a mostly inappropriate source. I am fine with our standard being "generally unreliable" here. --Jayron 32 11:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Deprecate. The Programme on Democracy & Technology at the Oxford Internet Institute treats The Daily Wire as "junk news" alongside outlets such as The Daily Caller and The Blaze (eg. [28]). A "research note" from the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review classifies the DW's YouTube channel as part of the "Alternative Influence Network" along with The Joe Rogan Experience.[29] A case study from the German Marshall Fund links the DW with spreading misinformation.[30] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should use only the best sources, and the DW isn't one. François Robere (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes deprecation is appropriate. I won't spend time repeating what others have said. In short, there is no good reason to use this source if the content can be cited elsewhere. If there is no other source, then the claim should probably not be in an article at all. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes deprecate. I don't think I've ever felt so exhausted reading through an RfC before. And it's not often I've found unreliable sources being used to defend an unreliable source. However at least for me the burden of the evidence provided above is clear - this is a source we should never be using except in its own article, and the only practical way to prevent its misuse is be deprecating and blacklisting. (Yes, I know it's not spam, but blacklisting is the only way to enforce deprecation, and it's not worth going through the effort to deprecate and still let editors use it). Doug Weller talk 09:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Deprecate Came here to check/start this on the back of [31]. Literally taking facebook postings as true facts and writing them in the publication's voice makes this a "never ever ever use" source. Corrected errors are one thing, this is something else. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The story has a correction already. Elsewhere on this page it has been claimed that this is something that testifies to the working editorial processes. Alaexis_¿question? 18:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"Working editorial process"? You just don't publish reports on unverified crap like that unless you are irresponsible in the first place. No real journalist would do that, and no editor worth his salt would allow such an article to publish in the first place. It's as if DW is using their website like it's social media and toss out whatever is on their mind with no thought. The damage has already been done when someone publishes lies like that. Retractions are important, but rarely amend the damage they have caused in the first place. Retractions should be rare. This points further to DW being generally unreliable as a source at best, and dangerous at worst. Wikipedia should have no part in forwarding the knee-jerk utterances of such writers. Platonk (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that the retraction of a 100% false story sourced to random people on twitter saying something (but stated as if an official arm of a government said such a thing) based on completely fabricated documents posted on random facebook groups demonstrates "working editorial processes" lacks the competence to edit here - anyone that believes this should have their editing closely monitored for acts that will bring the project into disrepute. Luckily, even you don't believe this. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Does it have a "reputation for fact-checking"? No, it has a history of occasionally issuing corrections after OTHERS have caught them with their hand in the cookie jar. That shows a disturbing pattern that warrants deprecation. -- Valjean (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

1) Wasn't a "random person on Twitter". He runs a think tank. 2) Anyone who believes that the retraction of a 100% false story...demonstrates "working editorial processes" lacks the competence to edit here is an unnecessarily personal remark. 3) They admit mistakes and openly post corrections at the top of the story unlike the [https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-stealth-edits-aoc-iron-dome-israel NY Times which is (allegedly) above reproach. Can't we all just agree that the various news outlets get stories wrong and they should clearly post corrections...exactly like DW did? Buffs (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, I changed the indentation level of your comment immediately above as it's obviously a response to Hipocrite. -- Valjean (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

No, my response was to all of you. Buffs (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh. My mistake. Sorry about that. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, deprecate For many of the reasons above: repackages material, omits certain facts to push a narrative, "turns anger into an art form", and, the best thing I've seen pointed out: a score of 57/100 and headered with the warning "Proceed with caution" on news guard [32]. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
This source also states DW "Does not repeatedly publish false content" "avoids deceptive headlines". "Use caution" would be status quo, not "deprecate", no? Buffs (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
No. Absolutely not deprecated, and quite frankly, Id vote for either a non-consensus or generally reliable in its area of expertise. Most of the reasons above like "repackaged material", "disregarding facts", "pushing a narrative" are all silly reasons that are being used to judge DW harsher than others because they don't agree with their politics; do the people who vote yes actually watch a significant chunk of their services through their own publishing, or only soundbites lifted from somewhere else? It is a partisan news service now with multiple field reporters and independent stories. It's very clear here that no-consensus needs to be the minimum here just from this message board; this doesn't mean that you can use the source as free reign, but it is a good source for all conservative opinions about any United States political issue. I don't think I have a strong case for generally reliable, but the Daily Wire has set a scope, most if not all contentious topics are backed up by either original sources, linking someone else's discovery (If NYT ran a survey for example and DW linked to that source) or from a government source. I've watched Ben's stuff extensively, I've watched Matt Walsh to a degree, I have watched some, but not too much of Candace Owens or Michael Knowles and hardly anything by Andrew Klavan or anyone else. To sum up, I would like No Consensus with additional considerations applying (such as limited topics for free reign or having a progressive source either providing a contrasing view). P.S. this is the first time I've seen this message board. If I was pinged earlier, I would have replied earlier. Titaniumman23 (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Your quotes "repackaged material," "disregarding facts," and "pushing a narrative," don't appear anywhere in the text above. Are you replying to something else? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I’m not trying to reply to someone directly. I saw someone earlier use the same terms to sum up what has already been said and I figured I could reuse the same terms for the same meanings. I believe the terms are self explanatory but I can write a definition for each if you’d like. Titaniumman23 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Those terms do not appear on this page apart from this discussion right here. Who are you quoting, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
They are (accurately) paraphrased, not quoted, from the remarks that immediately precede this one. The word "like" indicates "approximately similar to". Buffs (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
No per Titaniumman23 above. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Malformed survey

A solid percentage of people reviewing this have voiced that this is a partisan source, but is generally reliable for facts (I think it would be reasonable to say that climate issues should use caution). Few have argued for deprecation. Framing this discussion as if this is nexus of the dispute is absurd/hyperpartisan and inappropriate for the guidelines of an RfC (it is not a neutral statement). It is inappropriately framed as a False dilemma: the options should be more broad than this as the result is "Yes: get rid of it all" or "No: it's just not a reliable source". Likewise, many statements in prior discussions have been based on sources that don't say what the authors claim. Claiming "I don't need sources because others will provide it and I'll retroactively agree" is absurd. Establisher of this RfC has not pinged users who were previously involved. Buffs (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The following options should be added:

Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics

Option 4: Treat as a generally reliable source for information

Buffs (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options.

The discussion at RS/P produced such excellent and strong criticism from many good reliable and scholarly sources that I was tempted to go for full blacklisting, but decided to go for what was suggested there, which was deprecation. -- Valjean (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options. When the conclusion prevents such a discussion? Yeah right. Like I said, this is an attempt to game the system. Buffs (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Why can't we use the same format as Metalmaidens.com listed below for this RfC? Oh, right, it would prevent you from getting the exact result you want and prevents me (or others) from offering any alternatives. Yep: WP:GAME. Buffs (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I chose this because the rules for RfCs allow several different formats, and, based on the direction and recommendations in the previous discussion, this seemed to be the logical choice. All the arguments and sources presented there undercut your attempts to get TDW rated as a good source when it's actually a horrible source. -- Valjean (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It isn't a neutral statement, therefore it fails RfC criteria. Sources used as a rationale for such options in the past are misleadingly summarized; Example: "Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/" when in fact it states ""Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content" As such, neither option is an appropriate choice, but you've excluded those options and ignored other discussions on that page as well as other discussions in the past. So, no, that isn't a faithful summary of the previous discussions on the subject. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Nor did you invite the previous people in those discussions to this RfC... Buffs (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: The RfC nom did, actually. I direct you to WP:Canvassing. The RfC nom correctly used appropriate notification to notify participants in several other threads. If he/she omitted any by mistake (since you've buttered this topic all over Wikipedia, and who can keep track of it all), you were/are welcome to notify those other participants or threads yourself. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, he only mentioned this RfC in one of the two on that page and did not invite any previous participants. If he's made more efforts, he should publish them. You're the one who's claiming he did so. Where else has this been published? Why hasn't it been marked at the top of the discussion per Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions? Why haven't other editors been informed? Buffs (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: I see notices and invitations/pings at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire [33] [34] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please restore RfC remarks [35]. Where else do you think editors should have been notified? Who wasn't notified that you think should have been? Platonk (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How about all the people who were involved in the previous 3 discussions 1 2 3 and other discussions I've mentioned above? How about the talk page of the subject? Instead, he chose one specific thread and one barely tangentially related ANI page where opinion was in his favor and posted links/tagged those people only. So, no, that's not a neutral notification. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll happily tag all those people and invite them here (assuming they haven't already been invited), but I'm also not going to be accused of WP:CANVASSING if there are. The originator has already said "nah" to including anyone else. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, I placed a prominent notice at the end of the discussion, as noted above. Everyone in that thread, especially yourself, as the starter of the thread, had a chance to read it. The RfC process automatically alerted two different topic areas, so even more people would notice this RfC. So those who had been involved in your WP:RS/P discussion noticed it, as well as many who didn't know anything about what was going on. My edit summaries, which are read by many people who don't participate, were also clear about the new RfC here. I tried to do the right thing. I don't start RfCs very often.

Also, I don't recall saying anything like that above about "anyone else" ("The originator has already said "nah" to including anyone else."). What I said was "Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options." That was at 05:13, 27 September 2021. -- Valjean (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, see Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions#Best_pracitces:

If you do post notices, also post a comment at the discussion talk page that such notices have been made.
Best practice include making a note of where the discussion has been publicised

Dozens of people participated in previous discussions. The only way they'd know about this one is if they regularly follow the page. Those people should be contacted/tagged, IMHO. If there is no objection, I'll try to contact them in a few days. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This line of discussion is disruptive. There is no constructive reason for you to beat this dead horse and repeatedly harangue an editor over your days-old accusation of an omission that you yourself could have remedied if it were true. If putting a generic notice on a particular talk page isn't canvassing, then do it and quit complaining that someone else didn't do it. If notifying individual editors who were involved in discussions that took place in 2018, 2019 and 2020 is canvassing, then don't do that. If you are uncertain about the scope or details of the WP:Canvassing guidelines, then try asking your questions on its talk page or on a noticeboard with the purpose of discussing/clarifying policies. See also WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Platonk (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If you think this is disruptive, then stop asking questions. You can't ask repeated questions/ask for clarification and then use that as evidence of alleged disruption when a person responds. I can't possibly ask some talk page to see what your opinion is or seek clarification of your intent (if I do so, couldn't that be considered canvassing when I ask about the situation?). Asking for clarification is what a talk page is for; it's not disruption. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: Don't twist this around to pretend your hands are clean and your disruptive comments are all my fault. I asked questions once [36] and it was rhetorical — to suggest you do it yourself. And that was after I told you to handle alleged omissions yourself [37]. But instead of doing that, you have continued this line of badgering by posting five more comments [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. This noticeboard is not a talk page and your contributions here should be focused on improving the encyclopedia. Your pattern of pettifogging comments suggests you are not trying to resolve anything, but instead are being POINTY to the brink of exasperation. So if anyone has been making this subthread continue, it sure as day wasn't my questions 7 posts back! Stop gaslighting me! Platonk (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I asked the originator of this RfC for clarification, not you (a request that has been ignored). This noticeboard is effectively a talk page just like any other notice board and a place to discuss differences and reach a consensus (thereby improving WP). Discussing behavioral standards is part of that. To categorize dissent from your personal views/collegial discussion as "disruption" is inherently uncivil. You are the one who is slinging accusations left and right here, not me, and I ask that you stop. Buffs (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs if there is one piece of advice I could give you, it is that replying endlessly to all of these threads and comments with "citation needed" and repetitions of previously answered arguments.... all of it is detrimental to your goal. Reading this thread, uninvolved users are less likely to side with you as a result, not more. My advice overall is to step back from this and take a breather. If your criticisms are indeed valid, it is very likely someone else will respond. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your advice. I've not replied to "all these threads" and exaggerations like these are part of the problem here. Comments like "it's garbage propaganda" need a citation as they are feeding a negative image that is being formed via guilt-by-accusation. Others have responded. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Referring to 67 replies by a single user on just one RfC is not 'an exaggeration'. Platonk (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Platonk without making any statement on right/wrong/otherwise of these opinions etc. I think this is a very clear case of WP:IDHT. In general, my advice to you is to also stop responding. Uninvolved editors can very easily see and understand the situation here. It's not rocket science. Indeed, this is actually often used as a shorthand to understand how lopsided the consensus is. Seeing intense "badgerers" (for lack of a better term) in a discussion.

I admit, I myself have been guilty of this. I would bet most of us have been at one point or another! But the important thing is recognizing it. It's difficult to recognize in oneself, but very easy to recognize in others. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to get blocked for personal attacks and assuming bad faith, you should strike your GAME and other personalizing comments. -- Valjean (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I see your actions as an attempt to game the system. I asked for you to include options I want and you've refused. Given that you've also stated you control the conversation now and that I can't start an RfC until this one is over, I stand by my assessment. This isn't the place for such discussion. If you want to discuss it further, you know the proper venues. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

collapsed per WP:OFFTOPIC— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed a lengthy, tendentious section inserted by Buffs which makes wholly-unsupported and unsupportable accusations of connections to pedophilia. If Buffs believes a mass-market novel published in the United States by reputable mainstream publishers and favorably reviewed by a number of mainstream sources is "pedophilia," Wikipedia is not the place to promote their (wrong) beliefs. This insinuation borders on a personal attack and is wildly inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Lawn Boy and Lawn Boy. My comments are that WP has the exact same standards as DW and the mother in question. Restore my comments. Buffs (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. You know nothing about books and nothing about the First Amendment. As evidenced by the book's Amazon entry, Jonathan Evison's coming-of-age novel Lawn Boy was published by Algonquin Books, favorably reviewed by the NYT, the Washington Post, and a variety of other mainstream outlets, given starred reviews by Library Journal, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, and named a 2018 Editors Choice pick of Booklist. The novel is factually and legally not "pedophilia" and for you to suggest or state that it is, is frankly outright libelous toward the author. You may not use this platform to smear Jonathan Evison, a living person and a noted novelist, as a purported advocate of pedophilia - or to smear me for defending the work as being of literary merit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I am reminded of Cuties. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Wrong. You know nothing about books..." is hardly a WP:CIVIL comment. Furthermore, I very clearly did not "smear" you and went so far as to clarify it. As for this particular passage, I was pointing out what the person who was talking to the school board was presenting. If she was inaccurate, that's on her. There's a vast difference. The point here (and that I very clearly repeated before you deleted it) was that such passages, as described, fell under pedophilia and that WP has the same standards. In case there was any misconception, let me be crystal clear: I am NOT in any way accusing you of posting or defending pedophilia at this time. Reasonable people can disagree about content and whether it is appropriate for a school to have. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Buffs' assessment of the Daily Wire, but can understand their frustration by this RfC. There was a discussion opened about whether to [effectively] upgrade the Daily Wire at RSP, and while that was ongoing an RfC opened about whether to downgrade it. If the opposite were the case: if we were talking about deprecation and Buffs opened an RfC proposing to upgrade it to no consensus, that would be roundly seen as disruptive. There is a key difference, of course, is that the source clearly is unreliable for statements of fact. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to adding other options. I considered not !voting, but since I guess we haven't had a real RfC on this source before... meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

So, procedurally disruptive, but because you agree with him it's ok? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Buffs (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

No, and no. I highlighted a key difference in the hypothetical, but it's a hypothetical. If you read my !vote, I didn't support (or oppose) deprecation. We could use an RfC on it, I suppose, so while this one isn't ideal, I figured I'd respond as though it were a more typical source reliability RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Consulting the Media Bias Chart: Disclaimer, I know Adfontes isn't the infinite oracle of wisdom here but I think it's interesting to compare how a source scored there vs how Wikipedia treats them. The Daily Wire is rated as 34.41 and 14.43 for reliability and bias (positive bias = right, negative = left). What sources have similar scores (looking at absolute bias), Salon is 33.72, -18.08 so less reliable and more biased. New Republic is basically the same reliability but a bias of -18 vs 14.4. The Week is again about the same reliability but bias of 12. Vanity Fair is 36.15 and about the same bias. The Daily Beast and MSNBC are both about 2pts better in reliability and about the same for bias. None of this says Daily Wire is good but it does suggest our attempt to deprecate are overkill. These are all sites that fall into the "Analysis or High Variation in Reliability" bucket. Aquillion has listed a number of references but are they good? The first one I clicked on was a masters thesis [43]. Is that our standard now? This paper doesn't make a strong case for depreciation [44]. It basically says the DW criticized another news source for bias. If that was our standard then CNN would have to do away for their fixation on talking about "what Fox News just did". No question it isn't quality reporting but it's not the sort of thing that justifies depreciation nor is it something none of our acceptable sources would engage in. This one is an undergrad thesis [45]. The strongest material in here is a group that seems to repeatedly use the Daily Wire as part of their misinformation briefs but they don't provide examples of why the articles are wrong rather they are looking at web engagement. When the Daily Mail was deprecated, if I'm not mistaken, there were concrete examples of where they did something wrong. In the recent Rolling Stone discussion again there were clear examples of the source getting things wrong, refusing to correct etc. Here we have a lot of editor opinion (and undergrad opinions) but little in the way of true substance. Absent that true substance we shouldn't deprecate. Springee (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford Internet Institute's Programme on Democracy & Technology does have a FAQ for what they consider "junk news". Very much a guess here, but it appears that their newsletter is based on their aggregator results, with the methodology possibly described in this preprint. However, I can't find any specific discussion of Daily Wire on the site. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ooops, missed the listing in the preprint, Daily Wire is coded 'RB', 'S', 'Cr': "Right-wing bias", "Style", and "Credibility". fiveby(zero) 15:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is still a problematic source on several grounds. 1. This is a pre-print. Did this paper get published and where? 2. They don't provide evidence. That may not be important for what they are trying to do with the paper but it is important if we are going to deprecate a source based on their unsubstantiated claims. This is really the big problem with this whole discussion. The evidence used to deprecate is basically editor opinion or flaky mentions. Compare that to what was used to move Rolling Stone down in the recent RfC. In that case we had clear examples of problems and stories that were all but invented etc. The fact that academic sources think so little of DW is a good reason to keep them in the generally unreliable camp but not to deprecate them. Springee (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, LIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT seems to often rule this noticeboard. Just taking a closer look at the strongest material in here. fiveby(zero) 16:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Notification Given that there have been no objections voiced and multiple requests to include everyone who was involved in previous discussions, I'm going to ping all from those discussions I could find in the archives who have not yet voiced an opinion here. If you find someone who was not included, please feel free to ping them...I assure you it was an unintentional oversight (those who did not voice an opinion were not included...if you feel they should be included, please add them to the list):

@Sangdeboeuf, E.M.Gregory, Icewhiz, Titaniumman23, Patapsco913, Wumbolo, Lionel~enwiki, XavierItzm, Jayron32, Guy, MastCell, Valereee, Muboshgu, François Robere, Newslinger, MrX, GaɱingFørFuɲ, and Snooganssnoogans:

See #RfC: The Daily Wire Buffs (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That's only a fraction of involved people. For example from the Ben Shapiro article alone I see editors added cites to Daily Wire here here here here. Maybe if they were informed they'd agree their edits should be reverted, but WP:RSN pro-deprecate campaigns don't inform them by pinging, they don't even put notices on relevant talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I've only stumbled upon this RfC but there may be valid reasons why some users above weren't pinged before – E.M. Gregory was found guilty of sockpuppetry and banned, Icewhiz was TOU banned and Wumbolo is permanently blocked. A number of editors have also stopped editing Wikipedia regularly(User:Lionel~enwiki, User:Newslinger, User:MrX.) The original opener of the RfC may have seen this in their pages and activity log and decided to refrain from pinging them, extending WP:GF to them. BeReasonabl (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeReasonabl: Appropriate non-canvassing notices were posted by the RfC nominator. I suspect the reason no one was individually pinged was probably because Buffs wanted to notify editors who participated in RSNs in 2018, 2019 and 2020, which is unrealistically far back in time. Also, pinging individual editors is frowned upon, which is why I pointed that out earlier and discouraged it. But now that he's done it anyway — though only part way, thus risking a charge of votestacking because, instead of notifying everyone, Buffs omitted several he felt "didn't express an opinion" — I will ping the omitted participants (those who are not-blocked and who have edited within the last month or so): Bahb the Illuminated (2018 RSN), Doug Weller (2019 RSN), Emir of Wikipedia (2018 RSN), FreeMediaKid! (2020 RSN), Narky Blert (2020 RSN), Neutrality (2018 RSN), and Robertgombos (2018 RSN). Apologies to anyone who doesn't want to get re-involved after several years have passed, but I felt I needed to complete the list. Evaluating previous participants and only notifying some would be exactly why VOTESTACKING was written in the first place, Buffs. Platonk (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I decided to review The Daily Wire, using the New York Post, another source identified as generally unreliable, for comparison along the way. After briefly scanning their front pages and some of their articles, I have to admit that I did not find The Daily Wire to be as bad as I thought. Rather, it is roughly on par with the New York Post in terms of reliability, and the two do at least try to stay in contact with reality. That does not necessarily make either source highly useful, however. As was noted by the NPR, there is little original reporting by The Daily Wire. The two sources are definitely Foxier than Fox News, but not to the extent of InfoWars, although, while unimportant for this discussion, the vast majority of coverage on The Daily Wire seems to be solely about politics. Remarkably, its articles do cite sources, however imperfect, but that is where one should use those citations instead, and the lack of original reporting leads me to believe that we would not lose much to simply deprecate the source. Free Media Kid$ 22:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you just made the case for not deprecating. I agree that as a "generally not reliable source" we lose little in the way of good content by going the extra step to depreciation but why is that an argument for it? The Daily Mail was deprecated precisely because it was so widely used. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Additionally, your review suggests the source may actually be trying to improve. We can put that in terms of Wikipedia's own editor blocking policy. We block to protect Wikipedia, not to punish. If a generally unreliable source isn't widely used we aren't protecting Wikipedia by blocking it. Instead we would be, essentially punishing the source because editors don't like it. Anyway, deprecation should be a last resort, not a preemptive measure which seems to be how some editors would like to use it here. Springee (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: Your logic leaves me shaking my head. First, I and a few others already removed most of the uses of dailywire.com from Wikipedia, which is why you don't see it broadly used. And editors keep adding DW citations in new ways, despite DW being labeled generally unreliable, which means constant patroling efforts. Second, FreeMediaKid! expressed "briefly scanning [DW's] front pages and some of their articles", which is hardly an evaluation from which anyone could conclude "[DW] may actually be trying to improve". Third, if DW hasn't sufficiently improved after RSNs spanning three years such that consensus says to finally blacklist it, "its" efforts to improve are irrelevant; we're not talking about a child who needs nurturing and guidance. The staff at DW aren't listening to a bunch of Wikipedia editors' opinions on their 'reliability'. Fourth, "punish" is something you do to a sentient being, not an inanimate thing; blacklisting a website isn't 'punishing' it, and you cannot correlate Wikipedia editor behavioral sanctions to reliable source policies. Well... that is unless... unless you have some super secret special plan up your sleeve to go over to DW offices and tell them authoritatively to get their reliability ducks in a row "OR ELSE!" we'll cut them off here at Wikipedia.

Facepalm

Facepalm ! Platonk (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The logic is sound. Your implication of some sort of super secret plan certainly has myself and likely others doing a facepalm. No one has shown that DW is used to the point of abuse or that generally unreliable just isn't enough. Deprecation should be a last resort, not just a "we don't like it" vote. Springee (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If I had caused any confusion in how I reviewed the DW, I apologize. To be fair, I was rather graceful in my language, so let me rephrase the review. I evaluated that although it was not surreal like InfoWars or some other fringe website, it was not better than other generally unreliable sources like the NYPost either. I thus do not endorse the DW as a reliable or situational source due to its history of publishing false information as explained by other editors, nor do I consider it to be improving anytime soon. However, I did not explicitly rule out the possibility of using it to attribute the authors' opinions, but even then, I cannot understand how that would benefit us since other, better sources would likely both quote them and link to their pages. At least the NYPost has some use, even if it is still mostly useless. The point is that if someone can demonstrate that the DW is not outright useless, I may vote in favor of keeping the source as generally unreliable. Free Media Kid$ 18:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Injecting my reply to "Evaluating previous participants and only notifying some would be exactly why VOTESTACKING was written in the first place, Buffs". I asked for weeks for the OP to notify previous participants. I literally notified everyone who expressed a !vote, not just an opinion AND I specifically asked for anyone who feels I've missed someone to add them! To bitch about it after I've done my absolute best and accuse me of votestacking is completely WP:GASLIGHTING. At this point it's clear you aren't editing in good faith and you're only taking bits and pieces in order to malign my character. It's grossly WP:UNCIVIL. Buffs (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No one notifies people from three years back; that was your idea, and your idea alone. Objections to your plan were expressed, but you didn't hear them and so you did it anyway. No one else pinged those people, because no one else thought it was an appropriate action. And no one should have had to wade through three years of discussions to figure out if you missed anyone. I waded, you missed, I called you on it. You omitted 30% of the participants! Did you expect a participation award for violating policy? It's not like you missed one or two who were hidden (like Doug Weller's comment was, because it wasn't signed.) I corrected your "absolute best" with a groan, considering I don't think you should have pinged anyone in the first place, and I wrestled with whether or not I should ping the omitted ones I identified — to potentially balance your error. I shouldn't have had to do the work to identify who you missed. Neither should anyone else. Platonk (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's compare your remarks, shall we?

Objections to your plan were expressed, but you didn't hear them and so you did it anyway.

Really? I could have sworn you said the exact opposite. OH! It's because you did...

"If he/she omitted any by mistake...you were/are welcome to notify those other participants or threads yourself."

Then after I did it, you changed your opinion pretending you warned me all along not to do that and that it was a violation of WP:Canvass and WP:VOTESTACKing. Pretending you just had to notify all the people I "missed" is just your way of trying to belittle me and classify it as an error/point it out. You could just as easily said "I'm going to go ahead and ping those who didn't express a !vote too" and pinged 'em, but instead you used it as a platform to harangue me personally. I openly stated (those who did not voice an opinion were not included...if you feel they should be included, please add them to the list). I wasn't hiding anything and I explained my rationale and repeatedly explained why. I invited you to ping anyone else you felt should be part of the conversation. Those informed were about 11:9 for:against DW. For all practical purposes, it was a complete wash. When you throw out people who are banned, it was a net loss of !votes for DW. If you think this is a violation of canvassing guidelines, you're absolutely certifiable.

You think 2018-2020 is too far back? He didn't even notify people from a few weeks prior. Yes, I'd rather have a complete discussion. If you think more should be included, then I welcome it. But don't sit here and say that I'm doing something you warned against when you explicitly requested otherwise.

Canvassing and votestacking are done "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". I haven't. I did so in a neutral/slightly biased against me manner. If you have evidence I've done that, present it at the appropriate boards. Otherwise, knock it off. Buffs (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You're shuffling the timeline. The full quote: "The RfC nom did, actually. I direct you to WP:Canvassing. The RfC nom correctly used appropriate notification to notify participants in several other threads. If he/she omitted any by mistake (since you've buttered this topic all over Wikipedia, and who can keep track of it all), you were/are welcome to notify those other participants or threads yourself.". I thought you had been referring to recent topic participants, since you'd buttered the topic all over Wikipedia in the previous two weeks — not three years. By buttering all over I mean: my talk page, RfC nom's talk page, two other editors' talk pages, edit-war 'conversations' in edit summaries of several articles (1 2 3 4), lengthy discussions on an article talk page, two WP:ANI threads (1 2), and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire. And all that was between September 15 and 27 (when this RSN was started). And those are just the ones I know about. All of those were related to your defense of dailywire.com citations and relevant to this RfC. At no time was I referring to three-year-old threads because I wasn't even aware of them until you mentioned them with links a day and a half later. You've cherry-picked sound bites and twisted the timeline to try to make some point. If you had put together a cogent argument that had events correctly placed chronologically, one could perhaps take those arguments seriously. As it is, one must discard them as contrived. Platonk (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not shuffling any timeline. These comments are completely in chronological order. I wasn't even aware of them until you mentioned them with links a day and a half later You repeatedly referred to WP:GUNREL across numerous discussions/condescending diatribes specifically referring to the Daily Wire entry. If you were really unaware of prior discussions, that's really your own ignorance because it was part of your rationale. Your transparent intent here is to introduce confusion, plead ignorance, and vilify me with heaping piles of unsubstantiated accusations. Now knock it off. Buffs (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

I would like to respectfully suggest that this topic has long since passed the point at which it created more heat than light. I don't know that I see a consensus, but as I !voted, I'll leave that to others to judge. Still, for the good of all, I think it's time to close this survey. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur that it's reached the going in circles stage. I asked at WP:RFCC for a close - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Multiple people have weighed in including 3 in the last 24 hours. The originator hasn't even pinged those in discussions who opposed his point of view. Buffs (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, your third sentence here is an example of why I think we have hit the "drama for drama's sake" phase of the proceedings. Reasonable minds may disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very respectful. Dismissing my concerns as "drama" is not collegial. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Collegiality does not demand that you and I agree on everything, or indeed, anything at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Collegiality means we can agree to disagree and discuss matters without belittling the opinions or sincerely held beliefs of others. I never said it required agreement. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

~~Given the notification problem it's inappropriate to close now. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)~~

Hi Doug. A bit of context... There is no real notification problem. It's a straw man that has been debunked above by several editors, yet it keeps getting repeated by the objector. I placed notifications in the proper places, and those who were currently discussing the issue were notified or had the opportunity to see the notifications. We don't have a requirement or habit of going through the entire history of a subject and all archives for old discussions and then notifying all those people, so the notification objection is rather dubious and just an example of poisoning the well against me. (Consider the source of the objection and their history of adding links to TDW and stubbornly defending those links against the objections of multiple editors.) I did nothing wrong or unusual, and the repeated raising of this dubious objection is the real problem and a form of persistent and repeated personal attack. OTOH, now that more people have been notified, I have no objection to waiting a bit longer. -- Valjean (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Valjean. I agree with everything you say. It's a rare occasion when we should not just use the regular channels, and this isn't one of them. It was the new notification of editors that I was thinking of. But "longer" shouldn't be more than 2 or 3 days and if they all respond sooner, then. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully ask you keep this open until the end of October. I was not notified until someone pinged me about this, which was more than a week afterwards. I feel that the new pings who took the time out of their lives to comment but not know about this page should not be disadvantaged but rather catered towards. Thanks for your time. Titaniumman23 (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment—(my second post in this thread & I was notified by the bot (picked at random))—No matter how reasonable an argument is, posting & replying again & again & again is burdensome. This is a discussion worth having because it is an edge case. The faults in The Daily Wire lie in its reframing of news material from sources that may be more or less reliable. The within the original organization, any reframing is under editorial control—the original reporters are there to check changes and discuss changes. Most news organizations have codes of ethics and conduct. When there is a disconnection, shit happens. The deprecation of TDW only means that citations should be made from the original publication (in the broad sense). And that is what should happen now, even without deprecation. Use the best sources; don't take the easy way out. What deprecation will do is to short-circuit some of the repetitive post post post we see here. For me, it makes no difference what we call it. Think of our common project. Use the best sources available. Save the endless back-and-forth in articles. Save editors time for productive work. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 18:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: Also notified the talk page of The Daily Wire. Given that it's the subject, it seems like an appropriate location to notify. Other Wikiprojects may also be a solid source. Can't figure out how to add it to the top. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been a month now, I don't see a need to keep delaying as one editor keeps thinking of new groups to notify outside general RFC notification convention - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I only asked for them to be added for 3+ weeks. The argument that we should close it now that they've been finally added is absurd. "Keeps thinking of new groups"? You mean 2 groups of people in 24 hours? Boy...when will it ever end... Buffs (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You are behaving as if out-of-process notifications are a good reason to delay; they are not - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the urgency? There is no deadline (in general, and for RfCs specifically). I see both ayes and nays in the last few comments btw. Alaexis_¿question? 19:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:Requests for comment § Duration: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time. But editors should not wait for that: if one of the reasons listed above applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course. That's 4 hours from now. The discussion has run its course; there are a few stragglers, but not really much discussion going on. Two weeks ago, a few editors called for a close. I, for one, would like to see a close soon, and from a non-involved editor who is willing to wade through such a lengthy discussion and give an honest assessment of community consensus or non-consensus. If there is anyone participating in this thread who didn't WP:!VOTE, but meant to, they should consider marking their preferences soon. Platonk (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The next sentence in WP:Requests for comment § Duration, which you haven't quoted, is: Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action.. Alaexis_¿question? 05:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disputing RFC close on Daily Wire

NO ACTION

Challenge moved to the Administrator's Noticeboard; close endorsed by the community here.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

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

S Marshall There's a super=majority to deprecate, with strong arguments. How on earth do you get from that that there isn't? You need to explain this - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

While I !voted for deprecation (and still think it appropriate), I tend to agree with S Marshall here--though there might be a super majority, I don't see what I would call "consensus." But reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagreed with Dumuzid but I concur with the user's above assessment: there is not a consensus to deprecate. Please keep in mind there is no clear definition for a "supermajority" and it isn't just counting !votes, but the quality of the arguments which are at least highly in dispute as to their quality. Consensus is not about a majority vote. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I'm with David Gerard here. An RfC is decided based on "rough consensus" which is notably *not* unanimity. (It's also not decided purely by !votes, so a supermajority is not necessarily relevant, but it is definitely a factor I'd consider if I was closing.) By a very quick and dirty count, I count 29 deprecate votes to 19 no votes, with three abstainers. That sure sounds like enough for a "rough consensus" to me. (Obviously, since I voted to deprecate, I also think the arguments to deprecate are stronger, but I'm obviously not an unbiased observer there.) Loki (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with David Gerard's premise that this is a case where so many people have contributed to the debate that the vote count is persuasive evidence of consensus, and I will of course be delighted to go into more detail on my reasoning.
I noted that we describe The Daily Wire as unreliable already, and in this debate nobody at all tried to make the case that The Daily Wire is a reliable source. On this basis I evaluated all the evidence that the Daily Wire is unreliable --- and there was definitely a lot of evidence on that point --- as accurate, but not germane. The decision was purely whether to deprecate.
I subtracted Rhododendrite's !vote from the raw numbers on the basis that he abstained from the only substantive question. I evaluated Peter Gulutzan's contribution to the debate as a "do not deprecate" (and if I was wrong on this point then my conclusion may be unsafe depending on where you place the threshold of consensus). I then gave standard weight to those who repeated arguments that had already been made, and slightly greater weight to those who introduced new thoughts and new sources or who engaged in useful debate about them. I then halved the weight I gave to a user on the "do not deprecate" side who I felt was seriously bludgeoning. After performing this exercise I totted up my weighted outcome as 58% deprecate, 42% don't deprecate, and I take the view that this falls slightly short of an actionable consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think your reasoning that a strong majority with policy-based arguments is insufficient consensus to deprecate is completely out of line with how we've ever done these. This may need an admin close, or a group of admins close - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really don't think that dismissing the evidence that the Daily Wire is unreliable as accurate, but not germane is a good move, considering the standard for deprecating a source is that it almost always falls below Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Arguably, *only* evidence as to whether the DW is unreliable is germane. Loki (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It was legitimate to evaluate my contribution as "do not deprecate". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not participate in this one. Having read it through, it looks like a reasonable close. I will declare a bias, I think we are a bit too quick to deprecate these days, if I had participated I would not have advocated for that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- - Well, I've been asked to explain, and I've explained. The venue that could overturn this close is the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I suggest that David Gerard considers opening a close review there. I look forward to its conclusions with interest.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I think this was a reasonable close. I count 27 (or 29) vs 19. Two of the "29" said unreliable but didn't make it clear if they want deprecation. There were certainly arguments on both sides regarding why it should/shouldn't be deprecated and both sides made reasoned arguments that can't be dismissed out of hand. Going by pure numbers I've used 2/3rds (66%) as the consensus by the numbers line. This one was either 59% or 60% depending on 27 or 29. So this isn't a clear consensus by numbers nor by strength of argument. This looks like a good, careful close. - disclaimer, I argued against deprecation/for status quo. Springee (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
S Marshall, I have to agree with David Gerard. A super=majority exists for deprecation, and if you were to examine the history, and even more what's happening right now, you'd see we actually need this deprecation to protect Wikipedia, because the site's biggest fan here is still trying to defend it. Let's look at the pattern and history:

Buffs has a history of adding/defending The Daily Wire as a source in several articles, and even strongly defending their removal by Platonk and other editors. Strong defense of generally unreliable sources is problematic. All editors should seek to diminish, not defend or increase, the usage of such sources, which should be extremely limited and rare, and edit warring is never the right way to defend a source, yet that's what happened/happens.
Then, on September 26, 2021, they tried to completely delete the entry at RS/P without ANY discussion on the talk page. That content had been there since February 8, 2020 (about 20 months!). Only after meeting strong resistance did they start a discussion.
That discussion did not provide any support for them changing the entry, and in fact was so strongly negative that I saw it as evidence that deprecation might be best, so I started this RfC. If being classified as generally unreliable (caution sign) isn't enough to prevent editors from adding and defending the use of TDW as a source, then we need to protect Wikipedia from such attempts, and deprecation (stop sign) is the next step toward achieving that end. That move is evidently necessary. Just see what's happening.
Now, immediately after you closed this RfC, they still try to whitewash it. This RfC hasn't taught them anything, so either we deprecate it or a topic ban is needed.

I understand your view that the !vote count "falls slightly short of an actionable consensus", but, even if that view were legitimate (and I have my doubts), we can see that current actions to defend TDW show an urgent need to tip the scales in favor of actual deprecation. We need deprecation to prevent more disruption. This is not punitive, but to protect Wikipedia from tendentious attempts to defend unreliable sources, and a caution sign is quite evidently not enough. We need a full

sign or a topic ban. -- Valjean (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not we need it, imv we don't have consensus for it at the moment. I'm not minded to self-overturn here. However, you are welcome to bring it to the Administrator's Noticeboard where closes are reviewed.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I find the weighted outcome here to be arbitrary in how it assigns value to comments (somebody making a new but non-policy compliant argument is given extra weight????) and unsupported by any reading of WP:CON. nableezy - 22:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I missed the ping before the deadline, but I see the horse is being beaten further here. Daily Wire is clearly partisan, and less than reliable, but not to the point of full depreciation. They are much better used as a source for other news articles- the Daily Wire is pretty fastidious about that particular bit. But on the rare occasion they do their own original or derivative work that should be allowed inclusion directly. Probably not for use on B:LP but otherwise, don't depreciate it. Just an opinionBahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for admin close, preferably multiple admin close, posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin_close_needed_on_deprecation_RFC_at_WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a fact that the closer didn't seem to factor in when they made their tally. Many of those who opposed deprecation argued that all RS make corrections as soon as they are known and can be published. Those who used that argument should have been discounted as using faulty reasoning. In the various discussions leading up to this RfC about the reliability of TDW, evidence from professional and academic sources was presented by participants. Those sources exposed fatal flaws in TDW's coverage of certain types of politically-charged facts, and that documentation didn't seem to factor into the tallying decision. So that's two major facts that were not factored into the tallying.

There is a big difference between what RS do when they make a correction and what TDW does. TDW has a de facto position of denying the scientific consensus on climate change (and several other topics) because that is their position, and they will always shade their wording to deny or undermine that consensus. They are thus ALWAYS an unreliable source for that topic, as well as some others where their bias is so strong that they deny or undermine facts. This is what happens when sources are extremely biased; their bias gets in the way of accurately reporting the facts. They do not believe the facts.

TDW's track record reveals that lack of fact-checking isn't the real problem, but deliberate opposition to the facts is the problem, and then they dare to write their misleading opinions as facts. Later corrections, always because they've been called out, are just smoke and mirrors as they will do it again. They don't learn from that experience because learning the facts and then applying them to their editorial decisions is not their modus operandi. They believe and push disinformation, usually in harmony with Trump's positions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll endorse S Marshall's close. I don't think that Buffs' defence of TDW as partisan but not careless of truth was adequately addressed by many on the pro-deprecate side, and the discussion could be regarded as ongoing after 30 days. We really need to get the deprecate case right before changing RS/P, so closing as 'no consensus' can be seen as asking for the pro-deprecate side to get someone to put together the case for deprecation properly this time, which seems like the right step to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Chalst, this discussion has moved and the close review is now taking place on WP:AN. May I paste your review there?—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  - Sure. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  - I'll do this myself, in fact. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Reliability of The Canadian Encyclopedia

thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

I routinely cite The Canadian Encyclopedia for claims about Canadian topics, but recently I've become concerned that its editorial policies are not the strongest. For instance, its article on Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory is written by a freelance writer and journalist, not a historian. They invite contributions from (it seems) pretty much anyone. There are several editors but I can't find an editorial policy listed. At one point, the encyclopedia was published in book form by reputable publishers including McClelland & Stewart (see the various editions available on the Internet Archive), but these days that's not the case. I am not proposing a formal RfC, just trying to get a sense of RSNers views. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, that call for contributions does specify that the encyclopedia is looking for "experts" and "experienced contributors", not "pretty much anyone". That said, I agree that the standards of the encyclopedia have declined in recent years. Instant Comma (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that standards ... have declined. Have there been any actual errors noted, and if so, how has the Encyclopedia reacted (if at all)? That might tell us more about standards than WP editors' evaluation of CE writers' CVs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

JSTOR 30303104 (from 1989) lists a bunch of errors about Nova Scotia content but this was well before it started being published online (obviously). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

One example: The Royal Canadian Mint does not produce banknotes: [46]. Instant Comma (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the Canadian Encyclopedia is of a not-so-stellar quality, and it's in general a reliable source. I will note that a lot actually depends on who writes the specific entry. The one referred to here has actually too little written on its author. There are entries which are written by professional historians, such as this one by Gaston Deschênes, but as for this article on Maurice Duplessis is written by Conrad Black, who has indeed written a biography on Duplessis but whose biography is pretty much on the apologist side, though not that awful after all. It really depends on the entry, but I would presume it usable unless proven otherwise. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that's bang-on and would note that entries are increasingly written by the encyclopedia's editors and not by experts in the field. Instant Comma (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

allthatsinteresting.com

I'm having another look over the Overtoun Bridge article, and I've been unable to find anything on the noticeboard about allthatsinteresting.com, as this post is cited as a source within the article.

First off - it states that at least 300(!) dogs have jumped off this one little bridge in Scotland, which seems like a ridiculous amount. It cites this New York Times article for this claim, but even that simply states that:

Local researchers estimate more than 300 have sailed off the bridge; tabloid reports say it's 600. At least 50 dogs are said to have died.

I'm assuming it's tabloid hookum. 'Are said to have', 'local researchers' and 'tabloid reports' doesn't fill me with confidence.

I'm pretty sure it's not a reliable source - on their 'about' page, this is part of the text:

Both history books and news reports aren't always framed with sensitivity to the many perspectives that inform the human experience. We seek to cut through entrenched narratives and see past pervasive biases in order to uncover the truth about the subjects we cover.

So, yknow, that seems like an invitation to literally writing whatever.

I think I'd be right in removing it, but I'd appreciate a more experienced look at it. Thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Allthatsinteresting.com claims to have good editorial processes in place. That said, there has been a lot of coverage of Overtoun Bridge in legitimate news stories, which would seem to be preferable sources. For example, The Times (London) reported on June 26, 2015: “A Victorian bridge has been dubbed "Rovers' leap" after more than 600 dogs jumped from it on to rocky ground almost 60ft below. In the past 70 years, between 50 and 100 dogs have been killed after leaping off Overtoun Bridge in the village of Milton, West Dunbartonshire.” Let me know if you need a copy of the article. John M Baker (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@John M Baker: - a copy of that article would be fantastic, thank you so much, though I'd be interested to know where they've sourced both the 600 dogs and 50-100 dogs in the past 70 years numbers from. I'll also have a good look to ensure I'm not playing into WP:CITOGENESIS, either, as it seems like it'd be liable for that pretty heavily. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"Per its "about All That's Interesting" message, the website is owned by a private company in Brooklyn, "tied to no external funders, political interests, or third-party commercial ventures". It may be aimed primarily at an American audience, and be Americentric in nature. Its articles are attributed to "freelancers from around the globe". No guarantees about their backgrounds or credentials. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: - so, pretty much an anonymous quagmire. I'll have a look at that Times article to see where their numbers come from, but I think I'll remove allthatsinteresting as a source for now and leave a cn tag for me to replace later.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: I've sent you the Times article. Like many newspaper articles, it doesn't give a source for its numbers, so I guess it depends on how much weight you want to give to the Times' reliability. I would suggest including the numbers in the article and giving the Times as the source. John M Baker (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Is filmdaily.co a reliable source?

I ask because there's a strong possibility that someone operating multiple accounts is being paid to keep the Donavon Warren article alive. That's a non-notable director who, as far as I can tell, acted in and directed one indie movie called Wheels in 2014. Recently, after I discovered this, the (suspected) paid editor added a handful of recent "articles" about Donavon Warren - very suspicious, as they're all from the last month, and none of them appear to be in an actual reliable source. Looking at filmdaily.co, I don't see any real articles, just a bunch of spam dressed up to look like a legitimate site. As for the multiple accounts, check out User:Binaza and notice that they almost exclusively edited articles that Ugochukwu75 is heavily involved in. Does anyone else see this? Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin, this discussion is probably better held at the COI noticeboard rather than at RSN. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I felt it even falls into WP:G4. --SVTCobra 02:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The Latin Australian Times

This news source has been removed by a user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_325#The_Latin_Australian_Times from all Wikipedia pages for no reason https://web.archive.org/web/20170216082414/http://latinaustralian.com.au/

The news paper is no longer in print but it used to be called Noticias Y Deportes it was the oldest Spanish newspaper in Australia, and distributed in all states in the country.

It was supported and sponsored by all 13 consulates and embassies of Spanish speaking countries in Australia and its journalists were renowned and award winning in Australia

This should not be discarded as a Wikipedia source specially since media in Australia is so limited. Lat was the only news source to cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Globe_Australia Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

These references were removed for being unreliable. The stories that were being linked to were purely community fluff pieces and not pieces of reliable journalism. I'm not making the claim that every piece of content from LAT may have been unreliable, but the ones that you had added to support statements on Wikipedia were all the usual community fluff pieces you see in local newspapers and specialist minor circulation papers. Nothing about them came across as reliable in any way, and much of the time didn't support the notability of the statements being claimed. Additionally most of them were being used to support references for articles subsequently deemed non-notable by the community and deleted through AfD channels. (and this is before we get into the fact that much of the references to it were scans uploaded to the personal website of an individual you have a COI with with no evidence of copyright permission.)

All that being said, if you wish to use it as a source for a statement, this noticeboard is better served by saying what it is you wish to source, and what the reference is that is supporting it. Generally saying it should be used isn't helpful here. If you wish to bring something to the community you wish to source and ask if the article in question can be reliably used to source that claim it would be more helpful. Canterbury Tail talk 21:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The article in LAT about Sum Numg won an award why did tou have it removed from Sum Numg's wikipedia page? what do you know about circulation and spanish news papers? nothing period Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My reasons were explained. And it's amazing how many of those fluff pieces were also written by people with connections to the people in the articles, like all the ones about or even marginally related to Maurice Novoa and written by his mother. Just goes to prove how they are not journalistic reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You exaggerate so much that's how you convince people to take your side Maurice's mother only wrote one article connected to him and that was Mrs Globe Australia every other article referenced on Wikipedia was written by the editor Raquel Diaz. Australianblackbelt (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Note for reference, I'm not the only one who has ever called the LAT into question for it's lack of journalistic qualities or import. Here's another thread where it is raised and where no answers around its notability and reliability were forthcoming. A question that has never been asked that I can find, what is your connection to A) these subjects and B) the LAT itself? Canterbury Tail talk 18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Like I've said in the past I knew Maurice Novoa from the Uruguayan social club, I am just a pensioner and I had nothing to do with the latin australian times. I know you have a vendetta against Novoa and even though there is sources on him that didn't make the afd because I was conveniently blocked you will never accept it till you die https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/250994481_4444654728987230_7873012860185257027_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=e3f864&_nc_ohc=OMbPfXhdEFAAX8hXvKH&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=62767b53d14706c391286b859f9e403d&oe=61A68307 This is a two page color centre fold in the El Español special Australia day edition, it's all about Maurice and is the countries longest running Spanish news paper]] If you could read a word of Spanish you would read that one of Maurice's PR jobs has a former Australian prime minister as a guest. Maurice is famous in the small latino community in Australia, he has even been in newspapers in Uruguay as far back as 2001. He also appeared around 2003 in many print publications in Indonesia. Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You have never been blocked from anything on Wikipedia, your block log is completely clean and no one has prevented you from posting anywhere. You were notified of the AfD you are referring to above, you were active editing while the AfD was running. No one prevented you from participating. And I have zero vendetta against anyone or anything. I will just, like all good Wikipedia editors, remove non-notable promotional material from the project.

Anyway the purposes of this thread should be for you to propose using something in the LAT to support something on Wikipedia. Don't focus on other users, don't talk about how some people should be notable. This is the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If you notice no one else is responding, this is due to the fact that you haven't made any proposal on how to use the LAT as a supporting reference for an article. Please follow the instructions at the top of the edit window and you will be more likely to get a response. What is the source, what is the article, what is the statement that you wish to use it to support. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 20:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I propose that the LAT story on Sum Nung be reinstated on that page because I was an award winning article and picked up by other outlets overseas. Australianblackbelt (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Need to know the reputation of a publishing outfit.

What is the reputation of Edizioni Ca' Foscari-Digital publishing - Is it a Reputable publisher? A self-publisher? Other? Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: It's affiliated with the Ca' Foscari University of Venice.[47] Its domain name "edizionicafoscari.unive.it" gets more than 700 hits on Google Scholar. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

UCL Press

UCL Press isn't a vanity press, right? It's entirely open access, which gives me some pause. Appears to be run by University College London and surely UCL would sue UCL Press if the press weren't actually affiliated with it. Lots of its pubs are indexed on JSTOR, which seems a decent sign too. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

For context, doi:10.1629/uksg.257 is an article from UKSG which seems like it could be helpful. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It's unusual for university presses to be open access (the source you link to claims that UCL Press is the first in the UK) but open access is not the same as vanity publishing, and I can't find any reason to believe that this is not a legitimate university press. There are even blog posts on the UCL website referring to UCL Press's books as "our" publications. Though I've never come across them before, unless there's good reason to believe otherwise I would assume that their works are legitimate scholarly publications... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It is indeed run by University College London. M.Bitton (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Howard Blum

Some of his claims as covered on UFOs are labelled as dubious or false, as investigated by Phillip Klass^[1], what would be the appropriate way to address this issue in the project blue book article? I don't know if those claims of his are false, but phillip klass has found some parts of the same book to be dubious or false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book#Post-Blue_Book_U.S.A.F._UFO_activities and as I have referenced in the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_Blue_Book#Blum's_comments_should_be_taken_with_a_pinch_of_salt_and_not_at_face-value Chantern15 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

^ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-02-bk-1953-story.html

Modern secondary sources along with primary source from Raj Era

Dispute on sources on Srivastava

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1054030775

SECONDARY - Oxford University source ^[1]

SECONDARY - Milton ^[2]

PRIMARY - Gupte ^[3]

Other sources:

Christian ^[4]

Shukla ^[5]

References

^ OHanlon, Rosalind (2014). "Discourses of caste over the longue durée: Gopīnātha and social classification in India, ca. 1400–1900". South Asian History and Culture. 6. Oxford University: 102 to 129. doi:10.1080/19472498.2014.969013. On the 18th of October 1779, an assembly of learned Brahman in Banaras despatched a lengthy Sanskrit letter of ...
^ Milton Israel and N.K.Wagle, ed. (1987). Religion and Society in Maharashtra. Center for South Asian Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. p. 173. The Shankaracharya's letter contains three documents which he produces verbatim, two from Banares Brahmins(1779, 1801)..
^ Gupte, TV (1904). "Appendix I.(page 7) Translation of the letter addressed by the Benaras Pandits to the Peshwa Darbar". Ethnographical notes on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu. p. 8. Kayasthas are said to be of three sorts (kinds)— (1) the Chitragupta Kayasthas (2) Dhalbhaga Gatri Kshatriya Kayasthas and (3) Kayasthas of the mixed blood. The origin of Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas is given in the Puranas. He was born from the body of Brahma while he was contemplating how he should know the good and evil acts of living beings. He was a brilliant person with pen and ink in his hands. He was known as Chitragupta and was placed near the God of death. He was appointed to record the good and evil acts of men. He was a Brahmin possessed of supra sensible knowledge. He was a god sharing the offerings at sacrifices. All the Brahmins offer him oblations of rice before taking their meals. He is called Kayastha because of his origin from the body of Brahma. Many descendants of his bearing different Gotras still exist on this earth. From this it will be seen that Kayastha Brahmins of Karhada and Khandesha are the Brahma-Kayasthas. Now about the origin of Chandraseniya Kshatriya Kayastha.....(last line) In short the will of God is all powerful Sunday, 8th Day of the white half of the Ashvin month of the year 1701(saka).
^ Christian Lee Noverzke (2016). The Qutodian revolution : Vernacularization, Religion, and the Premodern Public Sphere in India, part 2. Columbia University Press. p. 159. In the thirteenth century they might have been considered as equal to brahmin or simply within the Brahminic ecumene
^ Shukla, Indrajit (2016). Loka Shasak Maha Kal Chitragupta Tatha Cha Brahma Kayastha Gaud Brahmana (in Hindi). Gorakhpur: Sanatan Dharm Trust.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Large swipe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

If these sources are meant to support the statement "Several Brahmin assemblies and Shankaracharya considered them to be Kayastha Brahmin", I can see the following issues here:

O'Hanlon (2014). Reliable source, but how does the quote support the statement?
Israel & Wagle (1987). Dito.
Gupta (1904). No. See WP:RAJ and various RSN discussions about the wider subject of Raj sources and caste puffery.
Novetzke (2016). Reliable source, but again, no immediate connection to the article topic. Note that the quote above has been altered by the OP. The original text goes in full: "It appears that, in the thirteenth century, Kayasthas may have been considered either as equal to Brahmins or simply within the Brahminic ecumene, this despite the fact that modern-day Kayasthas in Maharashtra understand themselves to have arisen from the Kshatriya varna and are thus an intermediary caste between Brahmins and Kshatriyas." So the subject is not ambiguous "they", but "Kayasthas".
IMO, not passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

–Austronesier (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ऑस्ट्रोनेसियर If you go through the Gupte source you will see that it reproduces verbatim the letter of Banaras Brahmins in local as well as English translation. The date of this letter is 8th Day of the white half of the Ashvin month of the year 1701 of Saka era, which roughly translates to October 1779 of comman era. Those are not Gupte's opinion but the translations of the original letter of Banaras Brahmins based on their interpretation of Puranas.

The Oxford University source talks exclusively about this letter while Milton source mentions this letter and also mentions that Shankaracharya's decision also contains this letter along with others.

You may google the conversion of Saka Era dates into Common Era dates.

previous comment by Large swipe (talk

Comments by LukeEmily:

I agree with User:Austronesier. The text disputed on the page is "Several Brahmin assemblies and Shankaracharya considered them to be Kayastha Brahmin. i.e. this edit

O'Hanlon (2014). Reliable but does not support Srivastava as being Kayastha Brahmin.

Israel & Wagle (1987). Reliable but does not support Srivastava as being Kayastha Brahmin.

Novetzke (2016). Reliable but does not support Srivastava as being Kayastha Brahmin.

Gupta (1904). Raj era source hence not reliable.

Shukla(2016): It is in Hindi and you have not provided any page number or English translation of the quote from the book discussing the letter. Is it WP:HSC?

Large swipe , can you provide more information on the last source(Shukla)? In addition to it not being in English, the link is also not accessible nor have you provided any page number or an english translation of any quote. The publication is not academic.

LukeEmily (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

NICAP And other non-government UFO research organizations

In some articles I have seen references leading to NICAP (don't remember the exact article) , in other articles I've heard from fellow editors (such as the talk page for "UFO sightings in the United States") that it cannot be used, can NICAP be used as a source, and I would like clarity about other UFO research organizations, such as MUFON, CUFOS (the stonehenge incident), etc.Chantern15 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

for what it claims, maybe. As a source of fact no.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If the organization itself is notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article (i.e. coverage is not WP:UNDUE), then perhaps one would reference their own writings as direct quotes or attributed examples of what they themselves have said, but such sources should never be used to cite material in Wikipedia's voice, uncritically. --Jayron 32 10:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So, one can include these sources, just in a neutral manner?Chantern15 (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

No, one would ONLY include the sources for direct quotes or paraphrases of such quotes by the organization (or similar) and ONLY if it was necessary for the article, for example in an article about the organization itself, it may be useful to use the organizations own words (or a paraphrase thereof) to understand the organization better; in those cases you can cite it. What you should never do with such sources is to use them as you would use an actual reliable source, and NEVER use it to cite statements in Wikipedias voice where it makes it look like there is widespread acceptance that what they say is true. Insofar as the false things they say are well reported false things, it may be useful to go to the source, but if they are 1) not well known false things or 2) being used uncritically in Wikipedia, you should NOT cite them that way. --Jayron 32 11:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The above, they can be used for their views, as long as they are attributed. They can not be used for anything else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:FRIND and WP:GEVAL. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, what about the articles which use info from such websites to describe UFO incidents?Chantern15 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Nothing in an article should take info from such websites as information. At most, we may report that "such-and-such a publication claimed this-and-that was reported to so-and-so" but we should never use their reports as sources for actual statements of fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That may be, but there are articles on Wikipedia which do use these as sources.Chantern15 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I'd like clear guidance on this, please.Chantern15 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Clear guidance: don't use 'non-government UFO research organizations' as sources for statements of fact in Wikipedia articles. They aren't compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria. None of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

And what is to be done with all the articles who do use these as sources?Chantern15 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

They should be edited to comply with policy. Which articles in particular are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Felix Moncla, The Stonehenge Incidents, Ellsworth UFO sighting and others.Chantern15 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

The Felix Moncla article cites several sources which don't comply with policy. Much of the article doesn't appear to be sourced at all. It needs reducing to whatever can be stated directly from reliable sources. As for 'The Stonehenge Incidents', what exactly are you referring to? If it is the section in the Stonehenge (building) article, that seems to cite several sources, but NICAP isn't among them. And it makes it quite clear that these are claims regarding an alleged UFO, not statements of fact. The Ellsworth UFO sighting] article is a total trainwreck, citing as its only source Robert Emenegger's mass-market book for the overly-credulous UFOs: Past, Present, and Future. Emenegger was also responsible for a 'documentary' of the same name. I shall look into this, and most likely nominate it for deletion, if proper sources cannot be found. Meanwhile, per WP:LINKSTOAVOID I shall be removing the links to NICAP (and ufocasebook.com) from the 'external links' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's good work on your part, but there must be more articles such as this, which I am not an expert on, this will be a long and slow process of clean-up.Chantern15 (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Dr. John Campbell's Youtube channel

1. Source: Campbell's Youtube page

2. Article: Ivermectin

3. Content: The views of Dr. Campbell on the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin, as expressed in a series of videos dedicated to that subject: ivermectin001, ivermectin002, ivermectin003, ivermectin004, ivermectin005, ivermectin006, ivermectin007, ivermectin008, ivermectin009, ivermectin010, ivermectin011, ivermectin012, ivermectin013, ivermectin014, ivermectin015, ivermectin016, ivermectin017, ivermectin018, ivermectin019, and ivermectin020

Discuss the general reliability of this source, including Dr. Campbell's credentials, the self-published character of his Youtube channel, and whether we can use in wikivoice or with attribution any of his content. Forich (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there an article about this guy? Because legitimate scientists publish articles, they don't post YouTube videos. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

They may do both, but good point, moreover, written sources are better for WP:V. There are exceptions of course, Skeptoid has sometimes been used to apply WP:PARITY and a transcript is generally available. Still, it would be unacceptable as a source for biomedical claims (not WP:MEDRS). —Paleo Neonate – 21:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

They seem WP:PROFRINGE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Campbell describes himself as "My name is John Campbell and I am a retired Nurse Teacher and A and E nurse based in England. I also do some teaching in Asia and Africa when time permits. These videos are to help students to learn the background to all forms of health care. My PhD focused on the development of open learning resources for nurses nationally and internationally." This alone seems to preclude him as an expert on ivermectin, imho. It appears he is not even a Doctor of Medicine. --SVTCobra 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
A click-hunting youtuber who has lately got into bed with the antivaxxers/covidiots and started promoting ivermectin and amping-up vaccine adverse effects. Just incredible this could even be raised as an RS when we have the WHO, EMA, FDA, Cochrane Collaboration etc. for sources on ivermectin. I am getting increasingly concerned about Forich's editing in this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This is neither a reliable source (especially in light of WP:MEDRS) nor is it even WP:DUE as a notable person whose wrong opinions are nonetheless notable in their own right. It has no place at Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 14:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what "reliable source" means in Wikipedia. Which part of "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" does a nurse's YouTube video would fulfill? What is this guy's reputation for fact-checking? If none, he is not a source. Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Not reliable YouTube videos are almost always ipso-facto non-RS. There is no way to verify the claims or establish the reliability of the video source/creator. Rare exceptions might exist such as videos from a major and reputable news outlet or a major university. But the odd exception aside, YouTube videos and channels are almost never RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Boobpedia

Added to the blacklist, clearly never acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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

As seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nuts_Magazine_models and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Banghard, is Boobpedia a reliable source for information on women listed on that site to be referenced here on Wikipedia?Chantern15 (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

"Boobpedia is a free and user-edited encyclopedia of women with big boobs.", its a wiki, so no.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

So is this going to be deprecated as a source?Chantern15 (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Doesn't need to be - an editor should be able to say "yeah, that's a wiki, probably not a good source for Wikipedia" - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I've asked on the articles' respective talk pages, whether this source should be removed.Chantern15 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

It absolutely should be. You don't need permission to make Wikipedia better. You can just remove it yourself. See WP:BOLD for more information. --Jayron 32 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's already unacceptable according to WP:UGC. It doesn't need to be specifically addressed. clpo13_(talk) 18:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

List em here and I will remove this tripe.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there are no more uses of the source in articles. Here's a search in case more pop up: [48] Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If it ever becomes a popular reference site like IMDB, I can see it being used in the 'external links' section of certain articles. But as a source? No way. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to make changes which could be immediately reverted, so I thought it best to start a conversation on the talk pages.Chantern15 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Jesus christ. feminist (+) 02:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I checked the sites' categories. It has an an entire category with articles derived from Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment There are currently no external links to Boobpedia in the mainspace, but this might be something to get XLinkBot to add to its list. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

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

livelaw.in

With reference to this section in this article: ^[1], what is the reliability of the website "livelaw.in" (reference 24)?Chantern15 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firecracker#India

Comment Reliable for legal news reporting in India. LiveLaw and Bar and Bench are used for quick referencing of court orders for mainstream media like here and here because nobody references law reporters like AIR or SCC. Their editorial board seems great, and they never sensationalise their news. - hako9 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds great!Chantern15 (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

RfC: The Ronin

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

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

This source from IGN writer Christopher Marc has been previously discussed at my talk page. One editor sites a claim that the source cannot be used because it is run by one person. On my talk page, others say it can be used because Marc has connections to the industry from his work for IGN. I also believe the source is reliable because most of his reports have proven true across several film and television topics. So, I am looking for a consensus. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 because Marc is a topic expert but his website is WP:SELFPUBLISHed so considerations for that apply.--Droid I am (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Option 2: I agree with Droid I am. Aside from the self-published aspects, there are possible WP:NPOV concerns. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Droid I am and Otr500: I also wanted to point out that their 'exclusive' reports (of which they have four pages of) have proven true for films and television shows that are or have been in production. In September 2020, they reported John Mathieson would serve as cinematographer for Doctor Strange 2. This was not added to Wikipedia until a writer briefly mentioned it in an interview in June 2021. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Reply: While I understand your position the wording "their 'exclusive' reports" is problematic. While I am not arguing the validity of the website or Christopher Marc, Editor-in-Chief, Founder, and apparently sole writer, the last does bring in an issue. Having "connections" to the industry and being an expert, does not resolve the concerns that self-oversight does not bolster reliability. In one instance the writer states: "Ronin has been able to confirm that Skydance/Amazon...", but this "confirmation" rests solely on that writer. If the information came from a reliable source why not print it using that source. If it was confidential then waiting for a time period (this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper or blog) for the information to be verified from official sources, possibly printed by third parties, is not a bad thing. If this information is confidential then this is more of a reason to wait for mainstream coverage.

That is just a quick summation of my reasoning following areas of WP:What Wikipedia is not ("Wikipedia is not a newspaper", "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site", and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion"), WP:SELFPUBLISH (that also includes blogs), WP:RSSELF (that includes "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.", and includes sources with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Option 3 This is just a blog or personal website. I see no evidence that Marc is a subject-matter expert. Working at IGN does not automatically make someone an expert. Does anyone have sources proving Marc is an expert in his field? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Option 3 because I am not convinced either that Christopher Marc is a subject-matter expert, in spite of his IGN experience. My Internet search returned information on his career in journalism that seemed scarce at best. If someone can prove that he is indeed one, I will upgrade my assessment to Option 2 for being a self-published source written by an expert. Free Media Kid$ 00:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Fantano aka TheNeedleDrop should be allowed as a source for music review scores

Fantano is one of the most popular music reviewers of this generation and his opinions are almost always well explained and formulated in his reviews. People respect his opinions and at this point he needs to be included on Wikipedia for albums he reviews. His review style is well thought out, structured and phrased. Yes he’s not part of the traditional media and doesn’t technically have an editorial oversight group but he does script his videos before he makes them and he has an editor too so that could be seen as some sort of oversight. His reviews are exactly what a review should be, his honest opinion. To exclude him from being allowed in the reviewer section of Wikipedia articles completely ignored the fact that he has his own unique style and just because it’s different doesn’t mean it’s worse is invalid in the music review landscape. His reviews are also his alone, so unlike publications that have multiple different reviewers of varying quality and taste his reviews are consistent with his opinions and don’t fluctuate as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.45.7 (talk • contribs)

Is there any evidence at all that these reviews are reliable, notable, etc.? Drmies (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
We have already had a long RfC about this, see (RSP entry). There is no need to have another discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Major concern about a Haaretz article

In the interests of WP:TALKCENT, let's handle this at Talk:Warsaw_concentration camp#RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp. Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello fellow editors. I'm coming to you with an unusual matter, something that necessitates your attention. There is an ongoing controversy[49] about the reliability of the article written by one of the Haaretz journalists but based on the account of the banned Wikipedian, where Icewhiz (banned Wikipedian) states that inaccuracy in our article was written deliberately as a hoax. That claim has never been proven. An important thing to keep in mind is that the mentioned Wikipedian (Icewhiz) was banned from editing by ArbCom (among other things) for making the same claims.[50],[51] Here is the link to the Haaretz article itself[52] and here is the description of the circumstances.[53] I especially would like to gather the viewpoints of uninvolved editors on the matter. Should we consider the story of banned Wikipedian as WP:RS? Thank you so much. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It would seem the ongoing RfC is the place for discussion: Talk:Warsaw concentration camp#RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please provide your helpful opinions there. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, one more critical thing. There are ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES regarding the topic area the source in question rests. --> Please see [54] GizzyCatBella🍁 08:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I must say I think Haaretz is bad source with very strong agenda and in general shouldn't be used at all in Wikipedia but as my views is minority and it does considered WP:RS by community we must assume the information in the article is the same quality and have same editorial control as other articles for example regarding I/P conflict so what good for the goose is good for the gander. Shrike (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather you included a neutral statement (i.e.: there is an RfC about the reliability of the source X in the context Y. Your input is welcome). I don't think we need any more agitation in other areas as well, and neither should we spill the RfC to other noticeboards as well.

@Shrike: I'll be grateful if you'll paste your comment to the relevant RfC section.

Other editors: please comment in the RfC, not here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that I was interviewed for this piece, misquoted, and Haaretz refused to publish my corrections (you can see my letter to Haaretz here). I used to consider Haaretz a reliable source, but based on my first hand experience with how they based a story on information from an editor who got himself banned for major disruption, and how they refused to issue a correction, I am not impressed, to say the least. Worse, earlier this year (Jan/Feb IIRC) the same journalist did a large interview with me promising to follow up on this, also promising to reach out to his editor and ask them about printing my correction - and then as soon as the interview as done, stopped replying to me, with the promised interview/podcast/correction/whatever never materializing. But over the summer they published a new article about Wikipedia [55], which while I think quite interesting, in one place veers back to repeating Icewhiz's claims, despite the fact that I tried to correct them twice, something that the author of that piece knows well. I send them an email with corrections, which again has been totally ignored. Overall, I think this calls for a re-examining of Haaretz as a RS, as Shrike suggests, because it seems that their editorial controls / fact checking / sources are quite problematic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think your experience of being misquoted is something that is common of newspapers generally, and is far from being unique to Haaretz, unfortunately. I have heard many similar things from experts about being misquoted in documentaries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be best if we had one discussion, in one place about this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The Houston Chronicle

Boldly closing this. There is no dispute as to the Houston Chronicle's reliability. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The Houston Chronicle is the largest newspaper in Houston, Texas, and the 14th most distributed print newspaper in the United States as of the first quarter of 2021. Currently, there are 1,045 external links to the Houston Chronicle on Wikipedia.

Which of the following best describes the reliability of the Houston Chronicle?

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting;

Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply;

Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting; or

Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Pilaz (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pilaz: why are you bringing this newspaper of record here? Doug Weller talk 20:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It is featured prominently in Astroworld Festival crowd crush which is currently in the main page, and it has not been the subject of previous discussion on this noticeboard. It is also missing from the list of perennial sources. The idea is to assess its reliability given its prominence on English Wikipedia. Should I have started an RfC instead? Pilaz (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If there's no reason to think it's unreliable, or any objections to it's use as a source, it doesn't need to be brought up here at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Unless I've missed any rule for posting on this board, that's simply your opinion. To the contrary, I think it's important to discuss the reliability of this source regardless. We've had discussions about the reliability of other "newspapers of record" in the past and cemented their status as RS in Wikipedia. I will open a discussion section below unless you think editors should judge the reliability of this source elsewhere. Pilaz (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I second ScottishFinnishRadish's analysis here. I hope you can understand the issue with every RSN question jumping right to 4 option pseudo-RfC. If anybody challenges the Chronicle's reliability, a good first step would be a post here with just, "I want to use the Chronicle for X claim. Is it reliable for that?"

Some of the prior discussion of national newspapers of record was needed to update Template:Find sources, and even that was met with much pushback from the RSN community. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand the format concerns, but I don't understand why we can't assess the reliability of the Chronicle without a dispute between two users. In particular, in the period 2014-2018, there was a significant blow to its reliability when a journalist was found to have fabricated 44% of his quotes in the span of 4 years, with 8 stories retracted and 64 other stories corrected. Would that be a valid rationale for maintaining this discussion open, to discuss the reliability of the Chronicle between 2014 and 2018 (and beyond)? Pilaz (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The benefit to the project is that the noticeboard can focus more collective effort on disputes that couldn't be resolved with local consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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

The Black Vault Website

Considering the large amounts of documents given to this website through FOIA requests by John Greenewald, it can be great resource to Wikipedia for not just Fringe topics, but also topics which involved a lot of government secrecy. Does it count as a primary source or as a secondary source (as it uploads all of those documents on its servers). If it's primary, what are the special circumstances where these sources can be used?Chantern15 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Not remotely a reliable site, not even as a mirror of primary sources. We have no way to verify that the documents haven't been altered or originated where Greenewald says they came from. MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, what about the insignias, the stamps and the signatures, it would be like saying that Greenewald doctored 4 million pages, that seems a bit far-fetched doesn't it?Chantern15 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

It is amazing what one can do with Photoshop these days. MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's awfully cynical.Chantern15 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

If the alternative is to take the word of someone who's best journalism credential is a producer credit on the history channel's UFO Files, then yes, I am a cynic. MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay.Chantern15 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Black Vault unquestionably fails WP:V. "But what about..." counter-arguments do not override that fact. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The website seems to have been used as a source in several articles. [56] This probably needs looking into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, it might be a great resource for OR but its pretty much worthless to us for legitimate purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So it is.Chantern15 (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Models.com for 1) interviews and 2) ranking lists

Hi, I was reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Hyun Ji Shin and came across Models.com used as a source. The website is currently cited in 951 articles: see 1 . The previous RSN discussion concerned the website's usability as a source for magazine covers with the consensus being that it is preferable to cite the original magazine directly. For the Hyun Ji Shin article, is this interview reliable as a source? What about these two "Top Models" lists? I think the interview should be reliable enough given that it looks professionally written and edited, but I am quite iffy on whether the "Top 50" and "Top Newcomer" lists are reliable/significant for inclusion. feminist (+) 14:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As is common among many people who come here, you're confusing "reliability" with "worth mentioning". Reliability means "is this source useful for verifying that Wikipedia text is correct". That's all. For things like "appeared on a top-ten list", the top-ten list itself is perfectly reliable for verifying that the person so named did appear on the list. The real question you should be asking is "Are the people who published this list of a high-enough recognizability that the appearance on the list is worth mentioning." That's a matter for WP:UNDUE-type discussions. It's not about reliability (do I trust the source), rather it's "is the source well-recognized enough that their opinion matters. All opinions, directly cited to the person who gave the opinion, are basically reliably sourced. The issue of "Why should I care about this person's opinion" is not a matter for this board. The issue of interviews is similar... There is the reliability issue of "do we believe the source in question made up the interview", but if not, then interviews where we believe the person in question really did say the things they said in the interview are reliable for quoting the person directly (though may or may not be useful for verifying the truth status of what they said, merely that they said it. --Jayron 32 15:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do understand the difference between significance and reliability; my question is still valid. The reliability of a source does affect the source's standing under WP:RSOPINION and hence the reliability of their opinion pieces. Rankings of models compiled by models.com are opinion pieces by the Wikipedia definition and hence the reliability of the source affects whether their opinion should be cited in Wikipedia articles. We routinely reject the use of opinion pieces from popular but unreliable news sources such as Breitbart and the Daily Mail: the issue with these sources is not insignificance, but rather unreliability. feminist (+) 15:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As noted in the link you provided "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." When assessing the opinion of this source as to who THEY believe to be the top 10 models, do we have reason to believe they lied or altered the truth when reporting their own top 10 list? If not, then it is reliable. Whether the source is respected enough that the opinion matters is a different issue, but there is no reason to suspect they did not publish said list, and the person in question clearly appears on it. --Jayron 32 16:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, and my focus is on the latter: whether the source is respected enough that the opinion matters, and "respect" involves reliability. Plus, the issue of whether parts of this article where the author is introducing the interviewee are reliable as a secondary source. feminist (+) 02:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A politician may make a statement regarding a medical treatment. Their opinions on the medical treatment may be worth discussing in a Wikipedia article, but I would not consider that politician to be reliable in regards to the information on the medical treatment. "Reliability" and "has a noteworthy opinion" have nothing to do with each other. --Jayron 32 12:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS: are primary sources completely banned?

I've received a notice about this edit following these edits. They're not exactly the same (the latest one added a supporting reference), but this was perceived as an editing war. Not willing to engage in that (which I realize is at least partly due to miscommunication on both sides), I would like to ask for opinions on whether the issue is so obvious because it doesn't appear that way to me. During the pandemic, primary sources were used to support information related to COVID-19 due to the lack of better quality sources. I've always been careful to use references from sources that WP:MEDRS considers trustworthy, so it seems to me that there is friction between the rules in WP:MEDRS and that deciding between informing and trusting the only available source (which is often primary regarding COVID-19) is not so clear. WP:MEDRS does not completely prohibit primary sources and appears to be written with the idea (which I agree with) that primary sources from core journals and major health agencies should be replaced by secondary and tertiary sources when they become available. Is this the right way to interpret WP:MEDRS? If primary sources are to be avoided under all circumstances, then I think WP:MEDRS must be rewritten to say so explicitly. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

In this one case, removal is probably in line with policy. Without trying to make any statement about greater implications, as policy notes "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials." and later things like "early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance" and "Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. and many other places. For the one study in question linked here for convenience, this is a 35-person study. That seems to be the textbook definition of "early lab results" and "small-scale, single studies" and "early-stage research" that are all recommended against using as sources for Wikipedia articles. Science is a top-notch journal, and this is probably good research, but not as the sole source for the information you are trying to add. It may be useful later as a supplemental source alongside a more rigorous secondary source, but at this point Wikipedia is best to remain silent on the matter than trying to place too much emphasis one one single preliminary study. --Jayron 32 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. But then, the fundamental issue is not that this is a primary source but that the study is small or too early in the research pipeline. The study was based on the data of a phase I clinical trial, so it can be considered nearly at that stage. Most articles on COVID-19 vaccines (including all major ones) have information about the results of these early trials, even when they were small studies. For consistency, this implies that such information should be removed from Wikipedia whenever such studies are small or when there is phase II-III data available. Is that correct? --Fernando Trebien (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No, never take any statement on what should be done in one specific case (as I did above) as any indication on what you should do in other cases. I have not looked at any other situation in my assessment above. If you have another source you think is inappropriately used, start another discussion so it can be looked at in context. Also, don't make any decisions on what I stated above. Wait for a few days and let other people (many of whom know a lot more than I do) to comment. --Jayron 32 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are not "completely banned" for WP:BMI: see WP:MEDFAQ for some handy thoughts on this (sadly unfinished). But for COVID-19 and high-traffic, high impact topics for which there is good material, Wikipedia must be extremely cautious about jumping the gun and relaying preliminary/unreliable material. It is better that we are silent, than wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Archontology.org

I came across archontology.org used as a reference on Queen of Trinidad and Tobago. A quick search of Wikipedia shows that it's used fairly often, but I couldn't figure out what makes it a reliable source. So I thought I'd bring it here to see if anyone knew more about it. Guettarda (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across the site before, but the fact that there's a typo on the homepage ("Shumerian" for "Sumerian") doesn't give me much confidence. The about page seems to suggest that this is one person's project ("my primary interest", "my study began") but I can't find who that person is. It seems as though WP:SPS applies: as the author is anonymous, they aren't an identifiable subject-matter expert and therefore site is not generally reliable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I looked at the website, and came to the same conclusion. WP:RS states that sources cited should have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I can't see how the author of an anonymous website can have a 'reputation' at all. Or at least, I can't think of any good reason to assume the website has one, without strong evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And more particularly, WP:BLPSPS warns never to use a self-published source for contemporary biographical info. So it would seem this source is pretty much entirely useless for BLPs, and should never be used. On the other hand, some of the references it cites might be usefully consulted Alexbrn (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I did a little exploring. I don't think it is the work of a single person. Juan Jorge Schäffer (deceased) seems to have been a noted contributor[57]. But more importantly, User:Oleg Schultz claims here to be the owner of the site. This, in turn, may lead to some questions about the Archontology article. --SVTCobra 10:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! Looks like somebody has been very naughty. Have PROD'd it, but maybe it qualifies for some kind of speedy deletion ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all! Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's a list of other contributors here. But given that individual articles don't seem to be credited to particular contributors, there's no real way to know who contributed what – and at any rate those various contributors don't seem to meet the WP:SPS requirements as established subject-matter experts with a record of publications in high-quality reliable sources in the field. So for Wikipedia's purposes, unless Oleg Schultz can be shown to be a relevant subject-matter expert (a quick google does not suggest that this is true!) – and it can be proven that he actually is the maintainer of the site, it's still not reliable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The Elephant Matthew Bryden Conviction of espionage

Fake Fight: The Quiet Jihadist Takeover of Somalia Is this source reliable for updating his profile to say he was convicted. Although it is authored by himself, as English language sources are preferred over foreign language sources, but there is also a Somalia language source which confirms that he was convicted. Should both sources be used, or just one or the other. Opinions please? [https://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/somalia/maxkamadda-g-banaadir-oo-xukun-ku-riday-matt-bryden Garowe online] Also, is the article in the Elephant a reliable source for other updates about Somali politics, as the author is clearly not too happy with the Somali government at the moment. Nevertheless, has the author mainted a neutral point of view in the article, or have his views been clouded by his own recemt expereinces? Opinions please? Amirah talk 12:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

AmirahBreen Is anyone disputing the fact of conviction? To be on the safe side we could mention it with attribution. Regarding this source in general, it seems legit: there is a board, people with Wikipedia articles about them write for it and it is supported by a few notable charitable foundations. Alaexis_¿question? 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No, there has been no dispute, but these are the only two sources I could find. I'll follow your advice, thank you. Amirah talk 19:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Documents from ERIC

User:Guillermo Sanders maintains that there is no requirement that sources need to be peer-reviewed in order to be reliable. Specifically, this edit marks the fifth time that they introduced this PDF into SAT (their first time was this edit, [58], followed by three reverts: [59], [60], [61]). They're obviously edit-warring (against me and User:Nerd271), and I guess I'll file a separate report for that. But the matter at hand here is that they claim that "There is no such Wikipedia peer review requirement. And it was obviously peer reviewed by at least ERIC if not others as well", followed by some personal attacks.

That document claims to be by Ryan Carmichael, MBA, who works for "Bruin Financial Management". The paper contains no other identifying information, no evidence of having been published in some reliable outfit. What ERIC does, among others, is offer grey literature, and presumably that's where this is from--please note that the article on ERIC itself is highly promotional (this is a key edit by a likely COI editor) and does not claim that materials on its site are reviewed at all. In addition, of course, Sanders's edit is highly partisan: "The 2019 research points out that College Board spread the lie that the SAT is essentially uncoachable for several decades, only effectively admitting in 2017 that they had been spreading a lie all along." Such categorical statements ("points out...spread the lie") are improper in the first place.

But the question here is whether this paper should ever be cited at all. There is no indication it has undergone any kind of review, that it was ever published (being posted on ERIC is not "publishing"), or that this Ryan Carmichael is an expert. Look around and what you find is promotional blurbs like this--which is published on a PR outledt by Bruin Financial Management itself, which appears to be a one-man outfit run by Carmichael. I propose that this paper not be accepted as a reliable source, and that it not be cited at all. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, and reliable sources are independent and from a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I suppose the ERIC document is "reliable" purely for what it says, but not for assertions of fact, and in any case its inclusion would be undue. Why should Wikipedia pay attention to this document that the world has apparently ignored? (And, if the world has paid some attention to it in reputable sources, we could use those). Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. That article has no business being cited and the editor's use of inflammatory language makes it even more unsuitable. Nerd271 (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-09-02-bk-1953-story.html

[2] OHanlon, Rosalind (2014). "Discourses of caste over the longue durée: Gopīnātha and social classification in India, ca. 1400–1900". South Asian History and Culture. 6. Oxford University: 102 to 129. doi:10.1080/19472498.2014.969013. On the 18th of October 1779, an assembly of learned Brahman in Banaras despatched a lengthy Sanskrit letter of ...

[MiltonWagle-3] Milton Israel and N.K.Wagle, ed. (1987). Religion and Society in Maharashtra. Center for South Asian Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. p. 173. The Shankaracharya's letter contains three documents which he produces verbatim, two from Banares Brahmins(1779, 1801)..

[4] Gupte, TV (1904). "Appendix I.(page 7) Translation of the letter addressed by the Benaras Pandits to the Peshwa Darbar". Ethnographical notes on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu. p. 8. Kayasthas are said to be of three sorts (kinds)— (1) the Chitragupta Kayasthas (2) Dhalbhaga Gatri Kshatriya Kayasthas and (3) Kayasthas of the mixed blood. The origin of Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas is given in the Puranas. He was born from the body of Brahma while he was contemplating how he should know the good and evil acts of living beings. He was a brilliant person with pen and ink in his hands. He was known as Chitragupta and was placed near the God of death. He was appointed to record the good and evil acts of men. He was a Brahmin possessed of supra sensible knowledge. He was a god sharing the offerings at sacrifices. All the Brahmins offer him oblations of rice before taking their meals. He is called Kayastha because of his origin from the body of Brahma. Many descendants of his bearing different Gotras still exist on this earth. From this it will be seen that Kayastha Brahmins of Karhada and Khandesha are the Brahma-Kayasthas. Now about the origin of Chandraseniya Kshatriya Kayastha.....(last line) In short the will of God is all powerful Sunday, 8th Day of the white half of the Ashvin month of the year 1701(saka).

[Novetzke-5] Christian Lee Noverzke (2016). The Qutodian revolution : Vernacularization, Religion, and the Premodern Public Sphere in India, part 2. Columbia University Press. p. 159. In the thirteenth century they might have been considered as equal to brahmin or simply within the Brahminic ecumene

[6] Shukla, Indrajit (2016). Loka Shasak Maha Kal Chitragupta Tatha Cha Brahma Kayastha Gaud Brahmana (in Hindi). Gorakhpur: Sanatan Dharm Trust.

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firecracker#India

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]