Misplaced Pages

• "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Misplaced Pages's guidelines, in the same way that we consider CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS reliable sources, even though all of those sources have agendas, close ties to governments and corporations, and have had their reputation for fact checking questioned in the past. RT has established that they have a reputation for fact checking even if their reputation has been questioned like all other reliable sources Misplaced Pages uses on a daily basis. Al Jazeera is funded by the House of Thani, the ruling family of Qatar; NPR, which was once solely funded by the US government, now gets the majority of its funding from individuals and corporations; Fox News and The Wall Street Journal are both connected to News Corp, which does not have a reputation for fact checking. MSNBC is another corporate owned news channel that claims to promote progressivism, but like The New York Times, has been accused of cultivating a close relationship with the US government and cracking down on journalists who criticize the administration. All of these sources have serious and ongoing problems with journalistic objectivity, corporate bias, and connections to government. To isolate RT from this collective cesspool of propaganda and disinformation and to pick on it alone as "unreliable" is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy. Good arguments can be made showing that RT has provided excellent reporting in certain areas, while other sources listed above have failed in the same areas. Let's talk about the journalists who criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or criticized the Bush and Obama administration that were fired or let go, or the journalists who were taken to court or ended up in prison. These are the media outlets you claim have a reputation for fact checking? Let's talk about the journalists who reported lies about the weapons of mass destruction, and promoted war and militarism without question or analysis. Let's talk about the history of fact checking from media outlets that reported over and over again that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Is that the grand tradition of reliability? Don't believe me, read it for yourself. No, I'm sorry, RT is just as reliable, and those who claim it's not are conveniently forgetting the last 13 years devoid of fact checking. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Viriditas for their excellent discussion here. Major papers in the United States and Britain have close relationships to their respective governments and to government officials, to the extent that all "national security" stories are now vetted by officials before publication. RT is, correspondingly, a paper of Russian officialdom. Fundamentally this is a political issue, in which medias and governments have interests and perspectives that follow from them. It's not simply a question of "western media being reliable" while "Russian media is not." -Darouet (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Major papers in the US and Britain do NOT have a "close relationship to their respective governments". This is a basic fallacy of equivocation. Just because there might be "some" relationship does not mean that is in the same league as the relationship between RT and the Russian government, where RT is really just the propaganda outlet for the Kremlin (and there's plenty of sources to back that up). Even government funded news outlets in US and Britain like BBC, NPR, or PBS do not have the same kind of "relationship" like RT does with Russian government. They have editorial independence and in fact you can often find the most critical stories in those outlets. Apples and oranges. Both fruit, but different.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not nonsense at all. It is a given fact that major papers in the US and Britain have a "close relationship to their respective governments", as that is how they get access. You appear to be completely ignorant of how the relationship between government and the media works. Please try to do some research before commenting here again. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's bunk. Yes, obviously major papers in US and Britain have contacts with their respective governments (and other governments too). So freakin' what? That's completely different than being a state controlled, state directed, propaganda outlet like RT. Please try and actually *think* for half a second before you comment here again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not bunk at all. The US media is corporate and state controlled, but the government influence is more subtle, as in, don't criticize us or you won't be getting an interview with so and so, and your press credentials will be revoked and you won't be invited to this meeting, etc. Please do the most basic homework on this issue before spouting off here again. You clearly don't know the topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And how about you check in that smug patronizing attitude before you start ranting nonsensically again.

And let's take your claim at face value. In the case of one media-government relationship, if the government don't like you, you get your press pass revoked. In the case of the other media-government relationship, if the government don't like you, you get murdered. But hey, it's really the same thing, right? For someone so full of himself that even my laptop is blushing, you're not particularly sharp.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A big round of applause for pointing out what has been discussed over and over again in this venue, as well as a multitude of talk pages, as if it were a revelation. I don't put any faith in any major news services (seriously, who isn't well grounded in Chomsky?), and everyone is failing to address the fact that WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS should apply when it comes to behaving as if articles about current affairs should be legitimised before they're even established as meeting WP:GNG, i.e., they're still happening, folks. We now proudly feature a number of articles which are being questioned with regards to meeting WP:PERSISTENCE such as Federal State of Novorossiya, Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down, etc. I don't care how contributors are justifying flying under the radar, but these are areas for WikiNews, not WikiPEDIA. Political advocacy, crystal balls and anything speculative being surmised and improvised on the basis of news services violate the spirit of Misplaced Pages. If the name of the game is to attract more contributors to compensate for the dwindling numbers, it's certainly bringing SPA's in in droves. I'd rather wait until the paperbacks written by various and serious researchers have had a chance to sift through the rubble and publish (peer reviewed) their expert views come out, thanks. If the name of the game is to actually be credible, pandering to current affairs analysis should be curtailed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Look, whatever your personal feelings about NPR, or NY Times or WSJ or ABC or CBS, those outlets DO have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Of course no news outlets has 100% score in that regard but so what? NYTimes is in a completely different league then RT. I'm sorry but it so happens that your views here are borderline (or over the border line) WP:FRINGE. This is a mainstream encyclopedia, and we follow mainstream sources and opinion. The last portion of your comment is really just one big rant about your own political views and honestly, who cares. See WP:SOAPBOX, there are other outlets out there on the internet for you to vent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing fringe about what I've said. RT gives more journalistic freedom to a reporter like Abby Martin, than MSNBC gave to Cenk Uygur (more found at MSNBC controversies). CNN's bias, close relationship to the government and lack of fact checking can be found at CNN controversies. And we see the same thing at Fox News Channel controversies. Edward Snowden didn't trust The New York Times because of their relationship to the US government. None of this is "fringe", but to a reactionary, I suspect they would appear fringe. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RT gives more journalistic freedom to a reporter - according to some anonymous guy on the internet going under the pseudonym "Viriditas". That's not even a appeal to authority fallacy, it's just a baseless assertion of your own idiosyncratic opinion, unsupported by any sources or anything else. Unfortunately, reliable sources disagree with you widely. RT has been extensively described as a propaganda outlet of the Russian government. The other sources have not (sure, by some WP:FRINGE sources, and by Mr. Snowden, but so what?). You seem to completely lack the ability to differentiate matters of degree. Just because one source is not 100% perfect, that doesn't mean that it's automatically as bad as a source which is notorious for its bias, lack of accuracy, obsequiousness and idolatry towards Putin, etc. etc. etc. A gallon of milk that's one day past it's expiration day is a different thing than a gallon of milk that's four months old.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, more red hearrings and nonsensical statements intended to distract. A cursory look at the scholarly literature on media bias contradicts every claim you've made above: " US coverage of the Iraq War was an example of extreme patriotism where the media functioned as fine-tuned government propaganda machines" "Overall, of the more than 600 sources categorized, official sources accounted for 33% of the news while military sources accounted for 26% of the news stories. It has been argued that the media often take sides of the institutionalized sources when it comes to issue of covering conflicts. This is because the media rely on the convenience provided by traditional sources of official informants. Invariably, those who are likely to provide alternative definitions through their critical views will not just have minimal access but may also be attacked if their commentaries are considered as unpatriotic. (Avraham, 2000). The hegemonic role of the elite media and their sources becomes fiercer when there is a perceived threat to the agenda set forth by the dominant power brokers." Clearly, you do not know what you are talking about. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. It's impossible to have a intelligent conversation with someone who is convinced that they are in possession of the one, sole, truth and their only response to disagreement is badgering and insults. If you don't get it, you won't get it. The project you're looking for is something like Conservatopedia, just tailored to your particular biases and prejudices, where you can rant and rave all about the evils of the "Mainstream Media (TM)" to your hearts content. Or get a blog. This isn't it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@viriditas

You are right and wrong at the same time. Yes many other if not all news outlets may have issues and agendas and yes it is hypocritical to single out RT. So far you are right. However the (implicit) conclusion you seem to suggest that all news outlets therefore are the same (hence should be treated the same) is unfortunately equally if not more hypocritical.

Polemically speaking (or tongue in cheek) we could use your line of arguing to skip any distinction between yellow press and serious press, after all as you rightly pointed out we all know about misbehaviour that serious media like the NYT did commit, so why singling out issues of the yellow press. Since were are at it why having a distinction between scholarly literature and news outlets? After all we all know very well of various scholarly scandals even in the natural sciences. So let's just treat all types of published sources the same way.

Obviously that is hardly the way to go. To get more concrete equating or likening the US government-NYT relation with that of RT and the Russian government is utterly ridiculous (does RT have a history of criticism of the Russian government and legal battles with it?). Reducing Al Jazeera to be funded by Thani, without actually having a look how it has or has not influenced its reporting and without distinguishing between Al Jazeera Arabic, Al Jazeera Americas and Al Jazeera English is equally ridiculous. For Fox news on the other hand personally I'd agree they are overall indeed as bad or as unreliable RT as far as quality reporting and agendas are concerned, however even they are currently rather critical of their own government contrary to RT. As far as the questionable behaviour and reporting of various US news outlets in aftermath of 9/11 are concerned, I'd recommend to be less US fixated. Leading reputable newspapers in other parts in the world were pointing all those issues at the time already. All those members of congress claiming to have been deceived by the the US intel agencies and press had to do was reading a few European newspapers. The day Powell was giving his infamous speech at the UN for instance major news outlets/newspapers in Europe already carried detailed stories why the evidence was wrong.

The "inconvenient truth" here imho is that we should do neither, that is neither singling out RT as the only bad one nor treating them all the same. There is no way to judge the reliability without a specific context and there is no simple rule that works across any context. There are criteria you can look at for a rule of thumb to crudely assess the overall reliability of a news outlet (based in democratic state versus a non democratic one, ownership and funding, local press laws, local press and opinion diversity, overall reputation for reporting (rather than individual cases), structural and legal set up (not all types of state funded are the same). However all of that might mean nothing in a particular context. So if in a given context you have good reasons to mistrust the accuracy of a news outlet, check other independent news outlets (ideally with an overall reputation for reliability) - at best several of them. If you are worried about news outlets in particular country, pick reputable news outlets from other countries (preferably with a free press and it a not too closely aligned country). Stay away from binary categorizations and often misleading simplifications a la US versus Russia or East versus West and be aware that reliability is not a binary thing is but rather a grey scale. It matters where on that grey scale a news outlet is placed in a given context and they are not all the same!--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RT does not seem to fall under yellow journalism, nor is it a criteria in WP:RS that a news outlet be critical of its own government. Fox News is only critical of the present administration because it is on the opposite side of the partisan divide, so those qualifications are somewhat spurious.

This is not about WP:RECENTISM, it's about the continual attempts by ideological foes to dismiss RT as a reliable source because it represents the POV of the Russian government. I think it reaches WP:NOTBATTLE at points, and is highly counterproductive.

As for a concrete example, here is a link to a thread from a month ago relating to the use of an attributed statement by the Russian PM sourced to an RT article.

Is this article Nuland's cookies as illustration of West's 'policy of non-interference' in Ukraine reliable for the following statement?

In December 2013, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev criticised her(Nuland's) support for Ukraine's Euromaidan anti-government protests as interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

Maybe we should put that to a vote.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

How many times now have you been told to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse? How many times have you been reprimanded for your continous and non-ceasing WP:FORUMSHOPPING? How many times has it been pointed out that you have a destructive WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude? As soon as you don't get your way in one discussion you run to a different board and restart the same discussion with the same crap. And when that don't work either, a week or two later you try and reopen that old discussion yet again. With the same same same. Quit. Wasting. People's. Time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a representative case of a specific instance that this more all-encompassing thread is about. It is not forum shopping, as the thread is from this board a month ago, as stated above. You have yet to make a single policy-based argument to justify the attempt to dismiss RT as a reliable source. Why is it that you are trying to impede discussion?

Here, it has been brought to my attention that the piece referenced above is not directly from RT, but from an affiliated agency Rossiya Segodnya, which is directed by the same person Margarita Simonyan. For all intents and purposes, they appear to be in the same bracket, with Rossiya Segodnya being

...the official Russian government owned international news agency founded by presidential decree on 9 December 2013

That being the case, I'm going to strike through that, leaving the link to the relevant thread.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

Folks, we're getting all heated up when there isn't a specific issue under discussion. Please, what is the specific text in what specific article that you want to use a statement from Russia Today/RT to back? If we can have that, we can discuss it. But just arguing over generalities like this yields more heat than light. --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: Did you see my comment above where I struck a portion of it. Please check the following linked-to thread

As for a concrete example, here is a link to a thread from a month ago relating to the use of an attributed statement by the Russian PM

That is from a Rossiya Segodnya piece, which seems to be about in about the same category. I would be very interested to hear your evaluation of the RS status of that attributed comment.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say it's Rossiya Segodnya? It seems to be Voice of Russia. Are you talking about this? Anyway, an official government news agency is certainly reliable for statements from officials of that government. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply.

Yes, the name is confusing, but here is a quote from the Voice of Russia article you linked to

On 9 December 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a presidential decree liquidating Voice of Russia as an agency and merging it with RIA Novosti to form the Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today) international news agency.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Kmhkmh makes an important point -'There are differences between the serious press and the yellow press and there are differences between the "free" press and the press in totalitarian states or a press known to be under strong direct influence of governments - imo a question I could frame like - 'what first made you wary of Kremlin-funded RT ' is a question of the same order caroline Aherne asked Debbie McGee - 'what first attracted you to the millionaire paul Daniels' - to pretend any news organistaion is as reliable as any other for independent reportage is either disingenuous or just plain nihilistic Sayerslle (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)-

Those "differences" seem to be based on a selective memory. For example, see the shoddy reporting, close relationship to government, and overt bias documented at CNN controversies, MSNBC controversies, Fox News Channel controversies, NPR controversies, CBS News controversies and criticism, and other articles. When The New York Times isn't too busy attacking dead journalists like Michael Hastings, they are working hard at suppressing stories like warrantless domestic eavesdropping, which they refused to print back in 2004. All of these so-called "reliable sources" have a proven conflict of interest when it comes to covering stories involving their corporate sponsors or the government. RT is no different. But, according to this discussion, the standards of journalism should only apply to RT, not to anyone else. Yet, we see time and time again, that the accusations made against RT apply equally to other reliable sources. Media bias in the United States covers this topic in full. When you review the evidence, we see that RT is in fact not so different than other reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about a selective bias by representing one yourself is hardly making your case. If you are so concerned about bias in US mainstream media, then consider alternative reliable US news sources like democracy now or even better skip US media completely and use Canadian, Australian, Irish, Indian, Japanese, British, Brazilian, French, German, Spanish, Scandinavian media, Al Jazeera English, etc. instead. And by the way the standards for journalism apply to any journalistic source, you are simply pursuing a "all crimes are the same"-strategy, which intentionally (?) ignores degree and frequency.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about RT and isolating them as an example of an unreliable source while ignoring the inherent bias in every mainstream reliable source we use daily on Misplaced Pages, while at the same pretending they are more reliable is the selective bias at work here. You're merely trying to reverse the claims. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't isolate RT nor do ignore the issue or bias with other media outlets, I do however strongly oppose to treat them all the same just because most/all of them made mistakes or had some issue at some point. Treating them all the same is imho wilfull ignorance due to binary classification (media with issues and media without issue). As I pointed out earlier it rather gray scale rather than a binary black and white issue. There is a difference between following a government line on a very few occasions or specific issues or following it more or less all the time. Not to mention that there is bunch of other differences as well (I discussed them in earlier postings already). And yes though both have issues or a bias I consider overall the NYT as more reliable than RT, because they placed at different location on that gray scale. Which one might be more reliable on particular issue depends on the specific context. More importantly if I suspect a strong bias of the NYT on particular issue, I'm not going to use it but resort to other media (as described above). For the same reason I'd almost never would use RT as source for political issue (other than for sourcing the Russian government line/view), but resort to other media. I would however use RT on non-political, non-contentious issues if i have no ther sources available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Who was more reliable when it came to covering the Occupy Wall Street protests, NYT or RT? More to the point, "It is now widely acknowledged that the Bush administration used faulty and false information to justify the 2003 war on Iraq, and that the mainstream media, by not adequately investigating the case for war, assisted with the project." The NYT played a major role in that assistance, especially in regards to the work of Judith Miller. Yet they are more reliable in your eyes? How are you able to selectively blinder yourself? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an obvious fallacy. Selective rhetoric about other sources is not going to help us reach a new agreement on whether or not RT is a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

this is quite an interesting read from buzzfeed how the truth is made at Russia today - and heres a report where the russians admit they lied about white phosphorous use in Ukraine, and it got reported slavishly by Kremlin RT , 'The false report was promoted by Kremlin propaganda arm RT.com then all the predictable pro-Kremlin echo chambers and discussed avidly on forums.' -Sayerslle (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The buzzfeed article you present was written by Rosie Gray, who seems to be working closely with the Foreign Policy Initiative to attack RT and present FPI talking points as "news". Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek uncovered this attack on RT and revealed it back in March. Your "interesting read" is pure propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theories about United States sources aside, I don't see why we should use RT for anything given what we know about its history and press freedom in Russia. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Media bias in the United States is not a "conspiracy theory" -- that's just a thought-terminating cliché you use to stifle discussion. Given what we know about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and other problematic sources (see above), we therefore know that RT is no different. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • No, we do know that there are different and I'm a bit astonished of your inability to recognize that. By the way if you have issues with "CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times" use democracynow.org instead or Al Jazeera English/Americas, but there is no need to resort to RT.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "Given what we know about CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and other problematic sources (see above), we therefore know that RT is no different." ... says an anonymous guy on the internet. Credibility = zero, or negative given the personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND smug tone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Another ad hominem? I've already added sources up above demonstrating the problem with CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times and others, and they are the same problems faced by RT. According to Ayeni 2004, "The skewed proportion of those who had close affiliations with the power brokers, namely official and military sources, could be indicative of a covert propaganda on the part of the establishment to ensure that the position of the government receives media attention as much as possible. Hiebert, 2003 made a reference to a commitment on the part of the US government to win the war in the mass media as much as the war at the battle front in Iraq." So the very same things you accuse RT of have been condoned by ABC, CNN, CBS, FOX, NBC, and others. Does the name Judith Miller ring a bell? According to Foer, " Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war." This is all common knowledge. The media corporatocracy works with the government to promote propaganda. And you are accusing RT of doing what the American media has been doing from day one. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • What ad hominem? You are an anonymous guy on the internet, are you not? And for ffs. Do any of the links you provide say that "ABC, CNN, FOX, NBS, and others" are on the same level as RT? No. Do any of these even mention RT? No? Then what's your point? If you want to start a new thread and argue that ABC or CNN or whatever are not reliable sources then please do so, and link to these to your heart's content. You seem to have a very hard time understanding matters of degree. One more time. It's not that hard. Just think about it for a second. If you make an effort I'm sure you can understand. Just because it's possible to criticize US or British media, does not mean that it's "just like RT". This is fairly elementary. In the literal sense, in that usually by the time they get to elementary school, even kids can understand the difference.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • United States media bias is an issue of ideology, not of government tinkering like we get with RT. The idea that Phil Donahue, for example, was fired for IRaq and not, say, his terrible ratings, is a conspiracy theory. It's irrelevant to this discussion anyway, as RT's lack of reliability is independent of any issues that might be cropping up with independent US sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a popular misconception. Any discussion over left-right paradigm issues are mostly a distraction from the real, underlying issues. People who go on and on about "liberal" or "conservative" bias are missing the point and are just creating noise. I just finished providing multiple sources indicating major government tinkering like we get with RT. This is not any different than RT. Furthermore, the issue is not independent of any other issues with American sources, the issue is endemic in all sources. RT meets the bar for reliability on a case by case basis, just like any other mainstream source that has problems with journalistic bias, corporate ties, or government sources. According to reliable scholarly sources about the media, MSNBC cancelled the Phil Donahue Show because they believed Donahue "seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." That's straight from the internal memo leaked out of MSNBC. The network was worried that Donahue would become "a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." Far from a conspiracy theory that you make it out to be, this is widely reported fact supported by evidence, published in multiple academic sources. Please correct yourself. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• I see WP:FRINGE. RGloucester — ☎ 02:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What is that hollow comment supposed to mean? To what are you obliquely asserting that WP:FRINGE applies in relation to the sources under discussion?—Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

All intelligent people are skeptical of the news media. Everyone knows where the stuff comes from. However, that doesn't mean that usually reliable sources that are known to be largely independent and acclaimed by the vast majority of people can suddenly be equated with a state-run sensationalist outlet that is widely questioned in reliable sources across the English-speaking world. RGloucester — ☎ 02:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Stephan Zweig, in his wonderful memoir The World of Yesterday, describes the role of free Austrian, German, and international media in the days leading to to the First World War, in fascinating and I believe pertinent terms. Though he did know writers who sought a perspective independent of their governments, Zweig writes that:

…it was supposed to be the intellectuals - the writers and the authors, the journalists - who did their country the service of whipping up feeling in this way, with a good or a guilty conscience, either honestly or as a matter of routine… Almost everyone in Germany, France, Italy, Russia and Belgium obediently served this war propaganda, and thereby served the mass delusion and mob hatred of war instead of resisting it. The consequences were devastating…"

The reasons that national medias tend, not universally but as a body, to support national governments and perceived national interests are, no doubt, complicated and perhaps even intangible. This phenomenon is far older than WWI and is, if you pay attention to the landscape of today's world's political conflicts and journalism, a continuing problem. Glenn Greenwald, the principle journalist who worked with Edward Snowden, has a lot to say about the American media and its integration (socially, ideologically, politically) with the American government. Some of his details are fascinating, so I hope you won't mind my quoting his applicable passages here. In his book No Place to Hide he writes that

there’s nothing extraordinary about this kind of media collaboration with Washington. It is routine, for example, for reporters to adopt the official US position in disputes with foreign adversaries and to make editorial decisions based on what best promotes “US interests” as defined by the government. Bush DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith hailed what he called “an underappreciated phenomenon: the patriotism of the American press,” meaning that the domestic media tend to show loyalty to their government’s agenda. He quoted Bush CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden, who noted that American journalists display “a willingness to work with us,” but with the foreign press, he added, “it’s very, very difficult.”

Greenwald continues,

Many of the influential journalists in the United States are now multimillionaires. They live in the same neighborhoods as the political figures and financial elites over which they ostensibly serve as watchdogs. They attend the same functions, they have the same circles of friends and associates, their children go to the same elite private schools.

This is one reason why journalists and government officials can switch jobs so seamlessly. The revolving door moves the media figures into high-level Washington jobs, just as government officials often leave office to the reward of a lucrative media contract. Time magazine’s Jay Carney and Richard Stengel are now in government while Obama aides David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs are commentators on MSNBC. These are lateral transfers far more than career changes: the switch is so streamlined precisely because the personnel still serve the same interests.

He sums up as follows:

US establishment journalism is anything but an outsider force. It is wholly integrated into the nation’s dominant political power. Culturally, emotionally, and socioeconomically, they are one and the same. Rich, famous, insider journalists do not want to subvert the status quo that so lavishly rewards them. Like all courtiers, they are eager to defend the system that vests them with their privileges and contemptuous of anyone who challenges that system.

This understanding, which is political, is wholly lacking in the arguments above that seek to place American media institutions on a pedestal above RT. I don't know how many Misplaced Pages editors here are American, but we have a serious problem if we want to objectively represent the world to the world's readers, but fall victim to fundamentally national perspectives or prejudices. I really don't have the energy or time to contribute sufficiently to this discussion, but Viriditas and Ubikwit have been spot on. You need to be critical, and thoughtful, when you read any article at all, be it from The New York Times, Die Welt, RT, or anywhere. But the contention that RT is fundamentally worse is a partisan one. -Darouet (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Folks, the original question posed was "Is Russia Today considered a RS?" To which the answer is yes (as are RIA-Novosti, ITAR-TASS and other mainstream Russian sources). Russia Today may be biased towards the Russian Government's point of view, but that doesn't mean it can't be used. If bias is found, then the solution is to counter that bias by finding other sources which counter that bias. We at Misplaced Pages are required to have a NPOV, the media are not. This makes our job here that bit harder, but not impossible. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. Again. It is true that all media outlets make mistakes or engage in biased reporting. And it is true that often, especially in times of war or international conflict, media outlets tend to support the positions of their respective governments. But there's a whole world of difference between a media outlet that for whatever reason chooses to pursue a particular editorial line, and a media outlet that is set-up, directed, operated, and solely dedicated to furthering an agenda of a particular government. RT is fundamentally worse from the perspective of Misplaced Pages policy on reliable sources. It was set up that way.

Like it or not, this is a mainstream encyclopedia. If you want to fight the power, stick it to the man, overthrow the system, complain about the "MSM", that's fine (and I may even say, more power to you), but this. isn't. the. place. for. it.

I'd say exactly the same thing to anyone who tried to argue that some far-right newspaper is a reliable source, just because the "libtard media is full of lies" and systematically biased against creationism or whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've started an RfC relating to the reliability of state owned/operated news media outlets at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#RfC_-_Do_we_need_a_new_section_on_state_owned_and.2For_operated_news_agencies.3F_Are_they_excluded_from_RS.3F.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Russia Today goes beyond just mere bias, they actually fabricate stories to push their agenda, and have be caught out doing so here and here. This article discusses the way RT fabricates stories, which has led to high staff turnover by journalists who are confronted with the way RT operates. At the very least, the above discussion shows there is no consensus on the reliability of RT, therefore RT must be treated with caution. --Nug (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, the same claims you've made about Russia Today can be made about every mainstream reliable source you hold holy and above reproach. In 1990, U.S. News & World Report claimed that there were "shocking acts of brutality inflicted by the Iraqis against innocent citizens at Kuwaiti hospitals" and that Iraqi soldiers "entered the Adan Hospital in Fahaheel looking for hospital equipment to steal" and that "they unplugged the oxygen to the incubators supporting 22 premature babies and made off with the incubators" killing 22 babies. Then US president George H. W. Bush used those claims as a pretext to attack Iraq. The only problem, of course, is that it never happened. The claims were a sophisticated PR propaganda campaign run by a public relations committee set up by the Kuwaiti embassy. Yet US media outlets reported it as Holy Gospel from God himself, and any journalist who questioned it was accused of being unpatriotic or in danger of losing their job. This is the US, not Russia I'm talking about! Where's the difference? And of course, the same thing happened after 9/11, when The New York Times ratcheted up the rhetoric about "weapons of mass destruction"—which led then US president George W. Bush to invade Iraq again. The only problem? There never were any weapons of mass destruction, just like there were never any babies being removed from their incubator. I can go on and on like this, with example after example of the mainstream US media making up stories, disseminating propaganda and disinformation, and firing any investigative reporter who challenges the veracity of their talking points. Remember Jessica Lynch and the Pentagon propaganda that every US media outlet reported as holy gospel? How about Pat Tillman's heroic death in the line of enemy fire that the media reported? Do I need to go on? It's hard to tell if RT is any different than mainstream reliable sources. The problem is that the people in this discussion have a short attention span, an even shorter memory, and don't question what the media spoonfeeds you. Guess what, you're being fed the same lies as RT. And for the second time, the Buzzfeed article is a work of propaganda itself, written by Rosie Gray, who seems to be working closely with the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) to attack RT and present FPI talking points as "news". Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek uncovered this attack on RT and revealed it back in March. According to The Nation, the FPI was launched by "Kagan, Edelman, Senor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol a neocon successor to PNAC. FPI’s mission has been to keep the Bush doctrine alive in the Obama era—supporting a troop increase in Afghanistan and opposing a 2014 withdrawal; advocating a 20,000-troop residual force in Iraq; backing a military strike and/or regime change in Iran; promoting military intervention in Syria; urging a more confrontational posture toward Russia; and opposing cuts in military spending." Viriditas (talk)
    • Well no, these wacky conspiracy theories of neocons lurking under beds you linked don't actually show that the mainstream US media makes up stories, their journalists may have been fed misinformation by their sources and reported them in good faith as in the incubator case, they weren't ordered by their management to make stuff up like RT apparently does. --Nug (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. You seem to favor plausible deniability as a modus operandi for the corrupt Western news media, yet you continue to level unsubstantiated allegations against RT citing sensationalistic social networking borderline "yellow journalism" sources to support your POV.

I would also point to CIA influence on public opinion, particular the section on gray propaganda. Before the exposures by Philip Agee, the CIA bragged about how many media outlets it had (editorial) control over.

At least RT acknowledges that it is a state-controlled news outlet.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 07:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would failed agents like Philip Agee, forced to resign from the CIA due to his drinking, womanising and profligate spending be more truthful than your allegedly "corrupt Western news media"? After all, people like Agee had a direct financial interest in propagating their sensationalist tales, book sales and happy Cuban paymasters. --Nug (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

He refuted those allegations.

More to the point would be why was the Intelligence Identities Protection Act enacted due to his disclosures? And moreover, why wasn't it applied in the case of Valerie Plame?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, he had a million reasons to refute those allegations, all denominated in US dollars. Intelligence Identities Protection Act was enacted to protect Intelligence identities from those who would profit from their exposure. Agee has the blood of several people on his hands, executed after he had betrayed them. --Nug (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to treat Russia Today as a reliable source. There is evidence of repeatedly fabricated & distorted reports - on controversial topics where editors seem most keen to cite RT. I recognise that some editors may really want to cite a Kremlin propaganda outlet if hundreds of other reliable sources fail to support the Truth that they want to put into an article, but that's exactly why we shouldn't cite RT. bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. We use RT in the same way that we use other government funded sources, such as the BBC, NPR, and Al Jazeera. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the majority of mainstream reliable sources have documented and ongoing media bias issues that bear little difference to the problems associated with RT. Finally, it is noted that the opposition to using RT on Misplaced Pages comes from partisan POV pushers who have been using Misplaced Pages as a proxy to "fight" Russia. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't have the power to manufacture consensus. There isn't any. If there was, this debate would not be happening. Accusations about "partisan POV pushers" are not helping your "cause". RGloucester — ☎ 20:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You're a day late and a dollar short. Consensus showing that RT is considered a reliabe source has already been recognized by at least one uninvolved admin. This consensus has been recognized by a wide sample of the community from Viriditas, Erlbaeko, Ubikwit, GRuban, TheBlueCanoe, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Zambelo, Darouet, and Iryna Harpy. The caveat that editors are cautioned to use RT carefully in controversial areas holds true for most other news sources, such as Fox News. Therefore, "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. There is a large consensus for this opinion, and the objections to this consensus seem to come from involved editors with a history of disruption in the Eastern European topic area and from culture warriors who are fighting a "cold war" against Russian sources. This consensus is clear and obvious. Now, put the stick down and stop beating this horse, it's already dead. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Appeal to authority by citing the opinion of some admin won't work here. It is also somewhat tendentious to continue list people as supporting your cause when they previously stated they actually don't. Equally a wide sample of the community from bobrayner, RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Thargor Orlando, Nug, Kmhkmh, Sayerslle, GRuban, and Collect do not support your position. In other words, there is no consensus wrt RT's reliability. Notion that some editors are fighting a "cold war" against Russian sources is just plain wacky, the Russian government run news agency RIAN (prior to Putin ordering its liquidation) was an order of magnitude more reliable than RT, as they don't blatantly fabricate stories like RT does. --Nug (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Misplaced Pages best practices involves uninvolved editors or admins closing discussions. Admins are expected to be familiar with our policies and guidelines unlike unvetted editors. When a group of editors involved in a particular topic area, like Eastern Europe articles, attempts to override our guideline on WP:RS by creating a separate, local consensus to eliminate the reliability of a source they don't like (RS), then often times an uninvolved admin is needed to set them straight. The consensus on this matter is clear and unambiguous and has been reviewed by multiple, uninvovled editors, including myself. Your contribution history shows that you have a POV in this discussion. It seems to me that your POV is interfering with your judgment in this matter. Any uninvolved editor or admin can review this entire discussion and see quite clearly that "Russia Today", now known as "RT", is considered a reliable source per Misplaced Pages's guidelines but should be used carefully in controversial areas, just like any disputed source, like Fox News, for example. In other words, this discussion is now over. Please do not continue to claim that there is no consensus when such a consensus is overwhelmingly clear and easy to see. Any opposition to this consensus appears to consist of POV local consensus making in contravention of our sitewide policy and guidelines. Furthermore, the bulk of the opposition to this consensus is composed of red herrings, personal attacks, and threats and intimidation. You've claimed that bobrayner, RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, Thargor Orlando, Nug, Kmhkmh, Sayerslle, GRuban and Collect don't support the use of RT as a reliable source, however, your claim is false, as many of these users have admitted that it can be used as a reliable source in this discussion. Collect, for example, said that the use of RT "depends a lot on what the claim is" and that "They have 'opinion content' as well as fact reportage, and without stating what it is to be used for, there is no single answer", which defaults to RT is a reliable source in some places just like any other source, which is exactly what the consensus currently holds. Sayerslle and Gruban both agree with this. Therefore, that leaves 12 editors for the use of RT as a reliable source (Viriditas, Erlbaeko, Ubikwit, GRuban, TheBlueCanoe, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Zambelo, Darouet, Iryna Harpy, Collect, and Sayerslle) and 5 editors against (including yourself, bobrayner, RGloucester, Volunteer Marek, and Thargor Orlando). Consensus for the use of RT as a reliable source is clear and unambiguous. As with all reliable sources, they must be used carefully in controversial areas and with great care. Please find something else to do with your time or remove yourself from the Eastern Europe topic area if you can't edit without disruption. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT won't work either. Every request I have ever seen here on RSN requires some kind of context of the source usage in determining reliability, editors like Collect, GRuban and others all rightly point out that it depends on the context. Your proposition that "RT is a reliable source. Full stop." is simply not supported, there is no "clear and unambiguous" consensus in that regard. RT is of course a reliable source for reporting the Kremlin's current propaganda line, but as for reliably reporting facts (like mis-reporting Ukraine using UN badged helicopters against pro-Russian insurgents), it simply isn't. —Nug (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus in this discussion that RT is a reliable source by 12-5. I'm sorry that you don't like it. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of the RS guideline and applies to all sources. Perhaps you should actually read it. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "clear and unambiguous". Russia Today is reliable in certain contexts, such as reporting the position of the Russian government. However, outlandish claims that often appear in its headlines that are not able to be verified anywhere in mainstream western media are clearly not reliable. This is just common sense, and you seem to want to privilege your own bizarre view on everyone else with your "full stop". Anyway, nothing here is a vote, as I'm sure you're aware. Tallying "participants" means nought, and isn't helpful in this discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear and unambiguous consensus that RT is considered a reliable source regardless of how many times 5 involved editors complain. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The claim of consensus is simply false. If anything, once you stop misrepresenting other people's statements, there's more of a consensus that RT is not a reliable source, except in certain narrow circumstances. Stop making stuff up. Full stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The claim of consensus is simply true and demonstrable. Please stop attacking other editors and changing the subject and then claiming there is no consensus. There's a consensus of editors by 12-5 that RT is acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages. Thanks for participating in this discussion, but it's time for you to move on. If you like, you are welcome to refrain from posting in the Eastern Europe topic area to avoid further disruption. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeating over and over again that there's a consensus, as a way of fending off the hordes who disagree with you, is tendentious editing. Consensus doesn't work that way, and you know it. You don't achieve consensus by simply declaring that whatever you want is the Right Way, and that all dissent is due to other people being "involved" or "biased" or, even, secretly supporting your cause even though they insist otherwise. For instance, listing GRuban as a supporter of some blanket approval for this source, when GRuban's edits here have said the opposite. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have already demonstrated a consensus that RT is considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Repeating over and over again that you and a minority of other editors refuse to recognize this consensus is your problem. RT can and is used as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. No amount of personal attacks will change this fact. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

Proclamations that consensus says "Russia Today is a reliable source" misstate what the actual "consensus" is. My own position, that "reliability" depends on what the source is being used to support is clearly what the "consensus" here is, and has always been. Bold faced claims otherwise do not alter that fundamental position of the vast majority of editors here. And ad hom attacks on folks being "biased" in any way do not help the cause of those assertions. Right now, we have "War and Peace" texts above, and I fear that some extreme cases of deafness are apparent. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe there are three or four main viewpoints on this topic (the two first may overlap):

• RT is not an RS. It should be banned from WP.
• RT is not an RS, but can, if no other source writes the same, be used as a source in the simplest way (“the government said blablabla".)
• RT is a biased source, reliable for simple, non-controversial facts, but should be avoided for anything controversial. I guess the position “it depends on what the source is being used to support” falls into this category?
• RT is as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions.

After reading the discussion, I still fall in the last category, but I agree it has to be used with caution (all news sources should). Remember the statement on the five pillars page. Per WP:5: "We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone."

Anyway, according to WP:WIARM, if a statement conflict factually with other sources (regardless if it is RT or another source), the situation needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis. That means; reverting a statement with a comment like: “See talk page” is OK, if a reasonable reason is described on the talk page. To just undo a revision with a short comment like, “RT is not an RS”, in the revision summary is never OK. Nor is it a valid argument on talk pages. Cheers. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Imho the first and the last category currently have the least consent so far. As I understood you (and in particular Viriditas and Ubikwit as well) you argue for the last category, whereas I'd argue for the third. The question of a proper or optimal procedure for a revert is another problem, that's beyond our scope here. A lot of people perform edits or reverts with insufficient commenting (from none to abbreviated stuff being unclear to the editors). In any case a disagreement about an edit (including the associated edit comment or lack thereof) needs to be discussed on the talk page of the affected article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I share the views with Ubikwit and Viriditas. I also believe you safely can add Zambelo, Herzen, Darouet and Mjroots to that category. But this is not a vote, and I am getting pretty tired of arguments which is not founded in the guideline or the policy. As clarly stated on the top of the page; "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy." anyway. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that RT is as reliable a source as most for simple statements of fact, and that its opinions, which should be attributed, are almost always notable enough to deserve inclusion if at least some body of editors argue so. RT is a source that has predictable bias, much like other sources that we consider reliable: in RT's case this bias means that RT's political perspective tends to support that of Moscow. Our response should be to treat RT's political perspective according to that understanding, just as we know that The New York Times or the BBC have their own national orientation.

Such an attitude neither excludes RT as a source, nor demands that we reprint every opinion they publish. -Darouet (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Well put.

On this board, a number of editors commenting on this thread attempted to dismiss, in an earlier thread, the use of VoR for an attributed statement by the Russian PM because it was critical of an American diplomat, in relation to an article that has 2-3 other quotes from national-level leaders criticizing the same American diplomat. The real problem is not the national orientation of sources, which are allowed to be biased, but the national orientation of Misplaced Pages editors that attempt to dismiss sources to win content disputes.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so well put.

• a)The "national orientation" of RT is hardly comparable with that of the NYT or the BBC (not BBC world).
• b)Yes, the "national orientation" of WP editors can be problem, but that works both ways, not just with the dismissal of presumably proper sources to win content disputes but also with the inclusion of questionable sources to win content disputes. RT imho even fits both sides. The real problem is that for those editors ideology or personal bias trumps the goals of WP in doubt, i.e. POV pushing is more important to them

--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion has run so long that several arbitrary breaks have had to be inserted while descending into Appeals to authority, walls of text, Ad hominen attacks over alleged "national orientation", misrepresenting what other editors say, treating the discussion as a WP:VOTE, and claiming over an over again like a mantra that "clear and unambiguous" consensus exists when it obviously doesn't, is a red flag that indicates the apparent tendentiousness of some editors in attempting to push their strident POV that RT is an entirely reliable source no worse than say, the BBC. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree with any of the four main viewpoints above? Erlbaeko (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nuggy, the article on BBC controversies pretty much refutes your claim. And the tendentiousness here is coming from the editors who refuse to recognize the overwhelming consensus that RT is considered a reliable source. If you don't like that, then don't edit articles where RT is used. It's as simple as that. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Viriditi, are you blind or being daft? I really can't see how someone can sit there and claim that a "overwhelming consensus" exist with a straight face, in light of this whole discussion. That's more than simple "chutzpah", it's simply delusional. Or insanely bad faithed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I've said before, in the face of overwhelming consensus that Misplaced Pages considers RT a reliable source, your only response to this overwhelming consensus that considers RT a reliable source, is to make personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Pragmatism is key. Outlandish claims that don't appear in reliable sources, that is, can't be verified, should be kept out of articles unless discussion on talk pages says otherwise. RGloucester — ☎ 21:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Most would agree with that statement, I do. I don't see where anyone arguing that RT is a RS in the 3rd or 4th group of the schema presented by Erlbaeko above has argued that "outlandish claims" from any source belong in articles.

One could add that no such examples of RT's "outlandish claims" have been presented, while the outlandish claims such as those made by A gay girl in Damascus, for example, have been cited as one counter (among many others that have been described by Viriditas) of such claims being made in non-state controlled media outlets.—Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 03:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this article. It is laden with outlandish claims and sensationalism, such as mentioning a "coup-imposed authorities in Kiev" and a "massacre". I find it hard to accept such an article that doesn't even try to hide its sensationalist bent. Tabloid journalism is tabloid journalism, and this encyclopaedia should not be based on the yellowness of tabloids. RGloucester — ☎ 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say that this is a case where WP:NOTNEWS might apply, and that the article, attributing much of the content to facebook posts, should not be considered accurate or reliable for that content. It does, however, describe the report released by Kiev.

Two other points seems more subjective.

The first relating to the definition of a "massacre". This Telegraph piece makes mention of the label with respect to the incident.

The second relates to the use of "coup". That would be WP:UNDUE in this context, but the unconstitutional removal of the head of state as a result of the Kiev protests meets the criteria of a coup d'etat per Misplaced Pages

Politically, a coup d'état is a usually violent method of political engineering, which affects who rules in the government, without radical changes in the form of the government, the political system. Tactically, a coup d'état involves control, by an active minority of usurpers, who block the remaining (non-participant) defenders of the state's possible defence of the attacked government, by either capturing or expelling the politico-military leaders, and seizing physical control of the country's key government offices, communications media, and infrastructure.

and is certainly noteworthy as such as well as in the context of the POV of the Russian government both Putin and Lavrov characterized it as such, e.g., in this BBC piece. That is something that should be discussed on the respective Misplaced Pages articles relevant to that topic, not on the article on the tragedy in Odessa.

Western news organizations also reported that the transition of power was not unconstitutional as it did not follow the constitutionally defined procedures for impeachment. That is factual reporting, with the coup d'etat characterization being noteworthy POV of the Russian government that should be presented along with the interpretation of event presented by Western news organizations in accordance with DUE and WEIGHT. —Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have a tendency not to trust sources that are willing to print stories based on Facebook posts, or to use subjective and inflammatory terms like "massacre" in instances that don't line up with reality. That doesn't sound like a "reputation for fact-checking" to me. Whether the action was "unconstitutional" is clearly a matter of point-of-view. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Ukrainian constitutional law, but I do know that many different people have many different opinions as to whether that action was "constitutional" or not. The difference, of course, is that Russia Today unabashedly makes these claims about "massacres" and "coups", but doesn't even acknowledge that there are other points of view, or that there is some nuance in the situation. In the reports of Russia Today, there is no nuance. There is no room for error on the part of Russia Today. There is merely what Russia Today says, and nothing else. I do not consider this to be a hallmark of a "reliable source", and I'd apply the same logic to other tabloids, irrespective of where their offices are located. RGloucester — ☎ 05:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Facebook posts are questionable, but the quotes are attributed, and the individual is described as being "the head of Odessa's emergency service department, Vladimir Bodelan".

So while I think that the characterization of RT as a "tabloid" is exaggerated and wrong, I would agree that the article you cited would not be a reliable source for the Misplaced Pages article on the tragedy in Odessa.

Regarding "massacre", the Misplaced Pages article reads

A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent. No clear-cut criteria defines when a mass killing is a massacre.

—Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 05:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to claim that we should use facebook posts, or sources which rely on facebook quotes as sources? Because, apparently, "they're attributed"? This discussion has reached a new level of absurdity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. The point was that RT stated that the commentary it was referring to was derived from Facebook quotes, and not from that individual by way of an interview or statement to the media. RT presented the Facebook quotes in context, it didn't misrepresent the context. The individual was noteworthy, he made the Facebook posts, RT reported it. I don't think that from a journalistic standpoint there is technically any problems with that. To the extent that facts were available were they checked? It would appear so, assuming that the Facebook posts were verified. Should RT have reported the Facebook posts? That another question relating to editorial discretion.

Obviously Facebook quotes are of extremely limited use on Misplaced Pages, and always questionable. As I said above, such social media buzz probably should generally be considered to fall under WP:NOTNEWS.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"No clear-cut criteria" demonstrates exactly why the word shouldn't be used. Regardless of that, another matter of point of view is whether the fire was intended to kill those inside, or whether the fire was set purposely. In fact, it is even point of view as to whether the fire killed the people, and not other outlandish things like "chloroform". There is a lot of nonsense all over the place with regard to this incident, but Russia Today doesn't get the nuance. RGloucester — ☎ 05:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester makes some good points about RT's unreliability; I agree. bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have consensus that RT is a reliable source for use on Misplaced Pages. It may be, however, unreliable on a case by case basis, just like any other source. Please stop trying to pretend that RT is treated any differently. It isn't. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against civil discourse. I do take issue, however, with flogging dead horses. Like has been said above, just repeating "we have consensus" does not demonstrate consensus. Consensus is formed through discussion, as we are doing now. If there was "consensus", there would not be a significant group of people opposing the notion that you say is "fact". There is no consensus one which way or the other. RGloucester — ☎ 05:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion several times. I've provided names and numbers, other editors have quoted positions. There is a significant consensus supporting the use of RT as a reliable source. Of the small minority opposition, they are made up of involved editors in the Eastern Europe topic area or editors who hold RT to a different standard than other sources. You don't like it, I get it, but life goes on. For every objection to RT you or others present, we can present dozens of the same fabrications and erroneous reporting from the BBC, Fox News, etc. Remember when the BBC attacked charity organizations by making the unsubstantiated claim that the Ethiopian government used money raised by Bob Geldof to pay for weapons? Or how about the fact that the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 93% of global warming coverage by Fox News was misleading? Or how CBS News funded a planned invasion of Haiti to overthrow its leader to make a documentary? Or the creation of hoax articles by The New York Times in 2003? Again, RT is considered reliable for our purposes, and just like any source, it must be carefully used. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where on earth is your consensus, Viriditas? All I can see is you consistently bolding 'we have overwhelming consensus that RT is reliable' throughout every break while consensus is calling your position horse puckey. How many more angles do you want to flog it from? Make them count because there's not enough flesh left on the bones. At best, in situ, it needs to be treated as a propagandist mouthpiece for the RF, therefore only direct quotes from spokespeople for involved organisations are about as far as it can be relied on for. Any other claims need independent RS media outlets to support their reportage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My consensus? My consensus? It's amazing how the minority opponents have consistently relied on ignoring the consensus in this discussion, and consistently attacking anyone who agrees that RT is considered reliable on Misplaced Pages just like any other source in its class. That's the consensus in this discussion, and it's the majority opinion. It is not my consensus, and I have nothing to do with it. It's telling how the minority opinion against RT goes out of their way to smear, distort, attack, and mislead every editor who recognizes this consensus. It's stupendous how involved editors in the Eastern Europe topic area are trying to create their own personal local consensus by ignoring this consensus. It doesn't matter how many times these opponents say "I don't like it" or "you're crazy" or "you love Russian propaganda", those are not valid arguments. Insert predicted personal attack from Volunteer Marek here. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone. Instead, I'm the victim of your attack about "editors involved in the Eastern Europe topic area". Just because I am "involved" in Ukrainian unrest-related articles doesn't mean I'm not qualified to comment on the reliability of Russia Today. On the contrary, in order to contribute to these articles, as I have done since February, I must read through a lot of Russia Today, Voice of Russia, and other Russian-sourced articles. I'm very familiar with how their written, the "rigour" of their fact-checking, and everything else. I have no inherent bias for or against Russian sources, or Ukrainian sources, for that matter. I'm well aware of the nature of the western media as well, and don't need to be lectured about the "media machine". In all my time dealing with articles from every part of the world with regard to Ukraine, Russia Today articles, along with some Russian and Ukrainian tabloid sources, have stood as outliers in their sensationalism, bombasticity, and willingness to unabashedly embrace the most yellow headlines they could possibly print. They hold no regrets for printing factual errors or outliers that cannot be verified elsewhere, and never report if it is later determined that what they said was false. They take no issue with using loaded terminology such as "coup", "Junta", "Kiev-authorities", and what have you, regardless of how these words don't align with the reality on the ground. Their coverage of the Odessa events was particularly insightful into the way they exist purely to stir up trouble, perhaps like this very discussion we are having now. So, that's that. Like I said, I'm fine with civil discussion. However, I will not eat WP:HORSEMEAT, nor will I tolerate attacks about "involved editors" that have no basis in reality. Please cease and desist banging pots and pans about "consensus" when it is clear that there is none. Please cease and desist personal attacks against editors who have done nothing but speak in a way you dislike. RGloucester — ☎ 06:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas:, please point to these personal attacks (verbatim, not your reinterpretation of them); list those who are in agreement with you (according to policy and guideline arguments) and those against (according to policy and guideline arguments). Let's try a little rational quantification of your 'consensus'. Making assertions about those who disagree with your position as being 'involved editors' and invoking WP:DONTLIKEIT as your method of discrediting those villainous 'they' editors sounds remarkably casting WP:ASPERSIONS because you're the one who is emotionally attached and stuck in an WP:JDL rut. I've just re-entered the arena after my computer died, only to find that this is being dragged out by you in a painfully WP:POINTy manner. I'm not seeing the consensus for RT as an RS you're so adamant exists. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have little to no role to play in this discussion, so you seem to be way off. I responded to this discussion as an uninvolved editor who is familiar with RT. In due course, I have noticed that the consensus for using RT as a reliable source is clear and unambiguous. Unfortunately, however, the minority opponents are attacking every user who supports the consensus and pretending there is no such consensus when this consensus is clear. Your claims about my emotional attachment are exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. You keep distracting from the consensus with ridiculous personal attacks. We've already tallied up the editors and arguments and the opponents are clearly in the minority. I'm sorry that you don't accept this, but it's the way it is. Please find something else to do with your time. I know I will. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead horse

Is Russia Today (RT) a reliable source?

This question has been kept alive for a long time by the same involved parties, with the same answer provided for many years in multiple discussions. This is a very small sample:

• 14 July 2009; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 23 August 2009; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 27 July 2010; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 9 January 2013; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 10 January 2013; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 17 November 2013; yes, provided it is used carefully.
• 13 April 2014; yes, provided it is used carefully.

Notice how the same users editing in the same topic area keep raising this issue. Viriditas (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers to that. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers to what, exactly? I don't know what the two of you are reading, but every one of those demonstrates a conspicuous absence of "the same users editing in the same topic area". There's only one - notably merely a couple of months ago - where a couple of the users/editors who've shown up here have voiced an opinion in that instance. Hardly surprising, considering that the same editors are following the events in Ukraine and it happens to be one of a number of their areas of expertise. Who would you expect to be working on the recent spate of articles as further issues arise? Medical experts? Phenomenologists?

Notable, also, is the question of who is bringing it to the metaphorical table. Perhaps you'd do better to question the motivation behind the issue being raised yet again after such a recent debate. Check on who's doing the asking and whether they display serious leanings towards POV editing. It isn't difficult to follow article edits and talk page discussions. Incidentally, Erlbaeko, don't push your luck with that reference to the Hillbilly Bone (song). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers to yes, RT is a reliable source provided it is used carefully (like all other news sources), and I guess I gotta watch where I am steppin' around here... Erlbaeko (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

All other news sources are most patently NOT reliable. We don't write-up every piece of cruft that the New York Post writes, nor the The Sun (Britain). RGloucester — ☎ 13:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry then. That "like all other news sources" was ment to the "is used carefully" part. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, have you even bothered to look at the corresponding talk pages to the articles under discussion. You're portraying the users/editors working on these articles as being buffoons charging through RS as if everything reported goes. For every paragraph in the articles, there are pages of heated discussion and consensus in order to sift through reports and thoroughly parsed usage of potentially loaded language in order to adhere to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Nothing goes unanalysed, and POV contributors pushing any particular line become easily identifiable. Nevertheless, neutral editors persevere with civil responses and pointing out both policy and guidelines relevant to the content and presentation thereof. Have you ever heard the expression, "Never assume: it makes an ass out of you (u) and me." Your 'hillbilly' allusion amounts to nothing more than a childish, offensive piece of arrogance and egotism reflecting on your own capacity to be discerning. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't looked at every corresponding talk pages, and no, I haven't heard that expression before. Why don't you stop asking questions like that and start arguing for your view with statements founded in the relevant policies and guidelines? My opinnion is still that RT is as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions. That view is mostly founded in the WP:NEWSORG and the WP:BIASED sections of the guideline. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop lying?

• First discussion: " I don't think this is a neutral source." (and note the discussion was originated by a indef banned user, on the pro-RT is RS side)
• Second discussion: Same guy who happened to say it was reliable in the first discussion claims it's reliable in the second. And this is actually an editor who thinks/though that pretty much *anything* is a reliable source.
• Third discussion: "The authoritative Economist calls RT "propaganda" and gives some examples that support the thesis that RT is not a reliable source. ". Or this "The people that perpetrated 9/11 are not fundamentalists at all". By RT's own account, they are "an alternative to mainstream media" and thrive on controversy. That doesn't mean they are necessarily routinely unreliable, but it does mean they are closer to tabloid than to authoritative.". Or this "No. There are serious, credible claims of state interference in the reporting of RT, which makes it different from BBC, F24 or Al Jazeera"
• Fourth discussion: "Russia Today is not reliable for the article". And this: "The Russia today articles you put have no fact checking, and when they do they are just quotations from the Russian foreign minister Larov"
• Fifth discussion: "RT is a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarian government It can't be used as WP:RS in Misplaced Pages" And this "But ultimately, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does Russia Today have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I did a little research myself and found some troubling reports:". And this "RT does seem to have a poor reputation, and should be considered questionable, except for explicitly attributed statements as to RT's viewpoint" And this "The site is not even respected as a reliable source by reporters without borders" And this "While we're at it, let's throw in some WorldNetDaily and Alex Jones—oh, but we already get a good dose of the latter from RT" And this "Russia Today is known to always toe the line of the Russian Government, and therefore should be used with caution, especially for anything remotely controversial. This is not the case for CNN or BBC (even though the latter is State owned)."

Sixth discussion: ... ... ... aw hell, I'm bored now, people should do it themselves. It's trivially easy to check that you're full of it. All that one needs to do is click the links and actually read the discussions.

All you've done, is decided that it's RS based on the fact that there might exist one or two positive comments about RT in each of these discussion, but completely ignored all the negative ones. The ones I just highlighted above. Getting a "yes, provided it is used carefully" is out of that is simply deceitful. By that standard, my grandma's blog is a RS "provided it is used carefully".

The only positive thing that can be said about RT as a source based on those discussion is that there *might* exist some circumstances where it can be considered RS (that's the "it's not totally banned from Misplaced Pages" line that some of the commentators take).

The level of bad faith in your commentary and posts is just astounding. I have trouble understanding how anyone with a modicum of self respect can just show up and lie so blatantly, and somehow believe that they're claims are not going to be fact-checked by a simple click on the links provided. You must really have a very low estimate of the average Wikipedian's intelligence to try and pull off stunts like these. Which might not be so far off after all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And this statement of yours: "Notice how the same users editing in the same topic area keep raising this issue. ". What is that supposed to mean? You're suggesting some kind of conspiracy, or at very least some forum-shopping by the same individuals on the anti-RT side. That too is completely and utterly false. There is a wide diversity of users (in fact I don't see many repeats at all) commenting in those discussion. You're trying to fool people hear that there's some dedicated minority which is trying to push their view through against consensus. That couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, you're flipping the whole thing upside down. What same users? (And of course it's the same topic area. For fuck's sake, it's Russia Today. Not "World Today") This is even more dishonest attempts at poisoning the well, trying to manipulate the discussion by presenting figments of your own imagination as reality, and a blatant endeavor to swindle the readers of this thread.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A thorough feat of debunking by Volunteer Marek. I can only add one more detail: The November 2013 discussion was driven by User:Zavtek who really wanted to be able to use RT. But, hey, if a sock of a permabanned pov-warrior wants to use RT, and editors in good standing disagree, then we just have to go with the pov-pushing sock, don't we? Because we've got to use RT, because the hundreds of other reliable sources don't say what we want... bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Absolutely nothing was debunked. The cited discussions indicate that the wider community considers RT a reliable source and has done so for five years. As expected, Volunteer Marek responded with personal attacks, distortions, misrepresentations, and cherry picking. It is abundantly clear over many years of discussion that there is a broad community consensus in favor of RT as a reliable source. To continue to tendentiously deny it and attack others who demonstrate it is symptomatic of a larger issue with continued disruption from editors who involve themselves in Eastern Europe articles on Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the putinist style is rubbing off on you. respond to concerns with empty rhetoric and ignore everything you intend to ignore, laced with hints of menace and trouble. To complain about 'distortions and misrepresentations', in a defence of RussiaToday, - its beyond parody as they say. Sayerslle (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack? Why am I not surprised. I have no interest in Russia-related topics, Eastern Europe-related topics, or anything having to do with RT. My interest is in noting that for five years we have had a consensus on Misplaced Pages maintaining that RT is a reliable source. No amount of personal attacks or red herrings is going to change this documented history of consensus. The links posted above show that there is a consensus to use RT on Misplaced Pages. You can deny it, deride it, attack the messenger, or whatever you like, but at the end of the day, you are merely engaging in disruption. Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

well I do have an interest in russia-related topics, like the Syrian civil war, where RT is part of a propaganda machine of dezinformatsiya - it sounds like you don't have any interest in, or look at what RT produces, - there is no consensus being expressed here as far as I can tell for it being a scrupulous , well established RS. not at all.and why boast about having no interst in Russia rlated topics and not following whats going on - to be informed is a thing to be proud of , not no interst beyond defending RT for some obscure reason,- ii haven't been following Ukraine so closely either , which I regret - but it seems informed commentators see a putin propaganda machine of extreme distortions - interpreter.com looks at RT regularly - RT is part of a propaganda machine, set up with that precise intent - this is from a 'Guardian' article - ,'Russia Today was set up in 2005 by the Russian government as a 24-hour news programme and has been accused of being a propaganda tool of Putin. Earlier this year one anchor, Liz Wahl, quit on air, saying the channel always wanted extremist voices hostile to the west.' - I didn't realize it was so new either, so youre saying by 2009 wp had accepted it as a 'well established' RS? Sayerslle (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas is making stuff up, again. There never has been a "clear" consensus that RT is a RS, not in 2009, not now either. Volunteer Marek addressed this in detail above, but unfortunately Viriditas apparently WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. This evident tendentiousness attitude is becoming tiresome and disruptive. --Nug (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not made anything up ever, and there has been a clear and unambiguous consensus for the last five years that RT is a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Please cease your personal attacks and distractions. Volunteer Marek addressed nothing in detail, he merely cherry picked comments out of larger discussions while ignoring the fact that in each case, uninvolved editors with knowledge about how we use reliable sources consistently determined that RT was acceptable to use on Misplaced Pages. The "evident tendentiousness attitude" is coming from you and everyone else obsessed with the Eastern Europe topic area. Uninvolved editors who are knowledgeable about how we use reliable sources have determined over the last five years that RT is acceptable to use. Volunteer Marek and yourself have ignored this evidence, preferring to create your own alternate reality divorced from community consensus. You are welcome to live in your own private Idaho, but you may not drag others there to accompany you. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I will ask you again to - A) Enumerate (by each of the previous RSN's you've referenced), where and how you have established your declared "overwhelming consensus"; B) Point out who the same users/editors participating in each of these prior RSN discussions are. Aside from the last RSN discussion which took place a mere 2 months ago (and only 2 involved here had brief input in that non-event), you are quite simply lying on every count.

@Erlbaeko: As you are so adamant that Viriditas is correct, you should be in a position to do exactly the same. If either (or neither) of you are capable of explicitly demonstrating this "clear consensus", you are making vacuous assertions, being WP:POINTy, and disregarding that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when determining when, where and how any given news source should be treated as reliable or unreliable (i.e., a reminder of the information already provided by bobrayner, plus further examples provided}. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing me of "lying" is a personal attack. You and others continue to make these personal attacks over and over and over again, and this thread is full of nothing but personal attacks from you and the minority opponents who refuse to recognize that for the last five years, RT is considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. Do not continue to accuse me of lying. The discussions are clear on this matter. We have consensus in this thread and we have consensus for the last five years in the multiple threads linked above. If you and others persist in disrupting the Eastern Europe topic area and related noticeboards concerning the use of RT, then I recommend that sanctions be put into place that would prevent this continued disruption, similar to those enforced at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The community simply cannot continue to tolerate the same disruption for so long. RT is a reliable source for Misplaced Pages, and the consensus is quite clear and unambiguous on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Time to WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, as you seem to be now damaging your credibiity with this apparent WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. What is clear and unambiguous is that there is no consensus on the matter, as evidenced by the fact that RT has been discussed here at RSN eight times in the last four years. --Nug (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has become very personal and I feel the question of RT's reliability has not been resolved to any satisfactory consensus. I personally rely on it for Russian political news, where it has proved more reliable than Voice of Russia and a good source of politicians' own statements, but its articles on foreign countries are pretty cringeworthy. Shii (tock) 13:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying that RT is more reliable than Voice of Russia is like saying that RedState is more reliable than Weekly World News. Wait. I might have that backwards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary

I have expressed my view regarding RT (TV network) several times, but I can sum it up for you. I believe there are three (or four) main viewpoints on this topic:

• RT is not a reliable source, it should be banned from WP, but can (if no other source writes the same), be used as a source in the simplest way (“the government said blablabla").
• RT is a reliable source. It is biased, slightly more reliable than a tabloid, but is reliable for simple, non-controversial facts. It should be avoided for anything controversial.
• RT is a reliable source. It is as reliable as any other news source for factual reporting, and reliable with attribution for opinions.

I have argued for the last category, and I believe Ubikwit, Viriditas, Herzen, Zambelo, Darouet and Mjroots also share that view.

I believe GRuban, TheBlueCanoe, Collect, Kmhkmh and maybe Ian.thomson is arguing for the 2th category. As I see it, they do find RT reliable according to the guideline, but they don't like to use them too often.

I support the 3th view because I believe it is best founded by the guideline, the policy, and even the WP:5 page. Some relevant citations:

• well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, ref. WP:NEWSORG.
• reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, ref. WP:BIASED.
• Misplaced Pages strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone, ref. WP:5.

I also understand that the reliability of a source depends on the context it is used in, as described in the guideline under Context matters, but I recon most users evaluate that before they even think about using it. I have no problem seeing that some situations need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and I have no problem with users reverting a statement if a reasonable argument is given on the talk page. But the general rule is that RT is a reliable source by the guideline and the policy.

This page, by the way, is not for voting or for building consensus. As clearly stated on the top of the page; "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.". This means this page is only meant to give editors an advice. The official policy that most directly relates is Verifiability. The policy is explained with regards to news organizations in the Identifying reliable sources guideline.

I also like to thank Ubikwit, Herzen and Viriditas for explaining the relevant part of the guideline, they obviously know far more than me about Wikipedias sourcing and other policies. Thanks again, and regards from Norway. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm more in the category that RT's almost not unreliable. Between your "not reliable" and "reliable but biased" classifications, holding that it should only be used as an additional source (not in isolation). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson Are you maintaining that RT and VoR are not reliable for statements attributed to Russian officials?—Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I fall into none of those categories. RT can be reliable some instances, as when reporting non-controversial facts that can be verified elsewhere and Russian government PoV statements. However, at large, it is a tabloid that should be avoided for controversial statements that cannot be verified anywhere else. RGloucester — ☎ 16:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess your and Ian.thomsons vote is somewhere between "not reliable" and "reliable but biased". Erlbaeko (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Early on in the recent Ukraine crisis, I found much of the BBC's reporting to be extraordinary, in part because they were able to get video footage of ongoing conflicts and present them with minimal subjective commentary to their viewers/readers. RT has managed to keep that up, and while I know their perspective is pro-Moscow, I often (not always) find them to be better at attributing controversial or biased statements than American or British news outlets. I strongly disagree with RGloucester in their statement that the source is a 'tabloid,' and continue to argue that RT is as predictably biased as the BBC or New York Times.

This discussion has been particularly acrimonious: plenty of users on all sides have complained of personal attacks in one sentence, and indulged in them wholeheartedly in the next. This creates a nasty atmosphere and discourages others from participating. So I'd like to encourage everyone to take a deep breath and forgive all others of their apparent misdeeds, so that the conversation can continue, or finish, productively. -Darouet (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't print extremely yellow headlines. I've already given one example above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You'd be hard pressed to find any major paper that didn't publish a "yellow headline," as you call it, if the paper took a combative instead of objective stand in a conflict between governments. I'm providing a few links to NYTimes articles below, with the top reader comments adjacent, to see how NYTimes readers have evaluated the paper's neutrality while reporting on Ukraine. First however, in the case above, you offered this example of yellow journalism from RT:

• 'Odessa massacre victims died in seconds, not from smoke – emergency service chief.' The statement is attributed, and concerns an incident that remains traumatic for all eastern Ukrainians or Russians who are following the conflict. You objected to the use of the term 'coup' to describe the ouster of the twice-elected president of Ukraine. I wasn't a Yanukovych supporter, but as other editors explained above, many Ukrainians were upset about that the president they'd elected into office was overthrown without a vote, despite his offer to hold early elections. If this situation is morally clear to you, it obviously isn't to many others, and you might imagine why a major Russian newspaper would describe the event as a coup.

Here are a few articles from The New York Times, for comparison:

• 'Russia Is Quick to Bend Truth About Ukraine,' is the neutral headline of one article on Ukraine by The New York Times. The news article continues, "another day of bluster and hyperbole, of the misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and, occasionally, outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine that have emanated from the highest echelons of the Kremlin and reverberated on state-controlled Russian television, hour after hour, day after day, week after week." The top comments by readers, in order, adequately appraise the WP:POV of the article:

1. 'By what morality on earth do you Americans… judge the Russians?'
2. 'I still don't see a single eastern Ukrainian interviewed in the NYT. This is getting ridiculous.'
3. 'Misinformation, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, overheated rhetoric and outright lies about the political crisis in Ukraine have emanated from every government that plays any role in this. The US was first, and hasn't stopped.'
4. 'And from the highest levels of the US government and media… The NY Times is one of the most dangerous links in this process… There was a time when the greatest generation thought about geopolitics and the Times reported it. Those were the long lost days.'
5. '… your article suggests that secret visits by the CIA director is propaganda: but it is not! He secretly visited Ukraine (entering under an assumed name). His visit was an example of how both sides are collaborating to make the situation worse.' Etc.

The article would never have made it through Misplaced Pages's editorial process, but news has gotten so bad in all countries, Russia included, this hardly surprises me. Here's another article from The New York Times:

• 'Ukraine Push Against Rebels Grinds to Halt.' Describing the loss of armored personnel carriers to the eastern Ukrainian forces, the article wrote, 'If the vehicles were indeed seized from the Ukrainian Army, it was not immediately clear whether they had been taken by force or with the collusion of defecting Ukrainian troops. Either possibility, however, would signal an escalation by Russian-backed militants in eastern Ukraine.' Readers were, again, quick to criticize the loaded language (not that I agree with every criticism but they're worth reading). The top comments, in order:

1. 'There is a claim that Russian soldiers or spetsnaz troops are imbeded with the protesters but if so they are staying out of sight. Green uniforms do not mean Russian troops.'
2. 'I am a bit confused - how would the defection of soldiers be an "escalation" by militants? Is the reporter claiming that soldiers were forced to defect? No evidence of that is given.'
3. 'The interim "rulers" in Kiev have no constitutional legitimacy and are incompetent. They gained power through mob rule, ignoring an EU-brokered agreement that they agreed to and that would have paved the way for elections this year.'
4. 'This military effort may seem slightly embarrassing for the Ukrainian army, however, the people who should REALLY be embarrassed are their leaders in Kiev who sent these poor soldiers to fight their own countrymen, something these soldiers are thankfully refusing to do.'
5. 'I am dismayed at the lack of objectivity displayed by the western media. I have been reading articles every day on this for the past week, and all I get is stories about accusations that Russia is behind it all.'
6. 'The defection of Ukrainian troops signals an escalation by Russian-backed militants ??!! I am sorry - this is truly Orwellian phrasing, almost comically so. So the defection of North Korean soldiers to South Korea would represent an "escalation of South Korean aggression" ??'

Plenty of editors here have spent far too much time arguing in circles around this issue - of RT's reliability - while the primary and inescapable issue has been and remains the growing geopolitical tension between the United States and Russia. As that tension breaks into open conflict in various places, unfortunately national medias tend to follow suit. We should hold all media to a higher standard, but whether we decide a source has stepped over the line of neutrality all too often follows our own political or national prejudices. The question of RT's reliability will keep coming back as long as these political disputes, outside Misplaced Pages, remain unresolved. -Darouet (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Holy freakin' cashews. You are actually, let me quote - "The top comments by readers, in order, adequately appraise the WP:POV of the article" - asking us to consider random comments by random anonymous internet accounts on a webpage, as some kind of guiding light as to what is and what is not a reliable source. No, just no. Reliable sources are NOT determined by what some schmucks post in some god damn comment section some where on the internet. This. Is. An. Encyclopedia. FFS. And this is completely putting aside the whole fact of pro-Kremlin internet trolls being hired and paid by the Russian government to post these kinds of comments at exactly the places like the NY Times comments section. This is just so wrong and betrays a fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding of what determines a source's reliability that just by itself, right there, it should cause all of your comments in this discussion to be discounted pretty much to zero weight. (*touches forehead with palm of hand and shakes head wearily*) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that should do as a summary. Editors should be aware that each source comes with its own set of interests and either attribute single-source claims or remove them. Now let's get back to editing these articles because I have noticed that there are still many accusations in conflict-related articles that are sourced solely to the Kyiv Post. Shii (tock) 19:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The New York Times is not a state-run outlet (unlike Russia Today), so equating it with "American" points of view is rather ridiculous. Regardless, I hardly trust user comments as an evaluation of the neutrality of the paper on the whole. Nor can we use them as an evaluation of the source as a whole. We follow reliable secondary sources in evaluating whether something is a reliable source. The New York Times is a reliable source. They make mistakes some times, but they'll admit them. Russia Today has no pretence. It will print what it likes, as sensationalist as it likes, and will promote itself as "questioning more", but that doesn't mean anything. There is an information war going on, both the Ukrainian and Russian sides. I'm well aware of that. However, there is no comparison between the way Russia Today covers these events and the way the New York Times does. Reliablity is not based on geographic location, nor POV, but on the way that fact-checking and coverage is done. Russia Today fails because it has poor standards of fact-checking, poor standards of choosing what articles to run. The Kyiv Post is a reliable source, and doesn't hesitate to report on things that supposedly go against its POV. One example, if I may present one, is this article on Odessa. It presents the nuance of the situation, unlike the yellow article from Russia Today I mentioned above. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You're removing the nuance from the discussion. The only story I've seen originate in Kyiv Post is the false story about secret "real results" of the Crimea referendum. My point was just that if something is true as opposed to just an accusation there should be multiple news sources attesting to it, even if they are all on the same "side". Shii (tock) 21:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That should probably be qualified with respect to statements by Russian officials, who are generally probably inaccessible and not talking to other news organizations.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that there should be "multiple news sources attesting" something. That's the cornerstone of verification, which is a policy here. I haven't seen the story you've mentioned. I've read many Kyiv Post stories. I read the New York Times in print every day, and I've read plenty of Russia Today stories. I did not remove any "nuance". As I've said, Russia Today is acceptable in instances where what it says is cross-referenced and verified. However, I believe Russia Today warrants caution on the part of editors for its tabloid and yellow tendencies, which are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Comparisons between "Russia Today and the New York Times" miss the mark entirely. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times warrants just as much caution as RT, perhaps more because the falsehoods aren't as obvious. Media critics have been taking the NYT to task for decades. From 1990-1994, Lies of Our Times notably critiqued their coverage. Amy Goodman's chapter "Lies of Our Times" from her book The Exception to the Rulers (2004), also covers this ground, showing what Harriet Malinowitz described as the "disinformation two-step: the White House leaks a lie to the Times, the newspaper publishes it as a startling exposé, and then the White House conveniently masquerades behind the credibility of the Times." What's the difference between RT and the NYT? I hope you realize if we make a list of stories that the NYT got wrong with a list of stories RT got wrong, the list on the NYT side would be twice as long. When they aren't busy drumming up support for war based on false pretenses, they are busy self-censoring on behalf of the government, lying by omission, slanting coverage on any critic of the administration, and telling one side of the story. This comparison between RT and the NYT doesn't miss the mark, it is entirely accurate. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times warrants just as much caution as RT. One more time. Stop making stuff up. Your personal feelings about the New York Times are ... interesting but irrelevant to this discussion. Start a thread on whether the New York Times is a reliable source. Then we can talk. Otherwise stop spouting utter nonsense. It's getting very tiresome.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"This comparison between RT and the NYT doesn't miss the mark, it is entirely accurate." That's your opinion, not a fact. As already noted to you days ago, I think most of us are well acquainted with the concept of media self-censorship. RT may have been correct in their analysis of what competing global powers are up to some of the time, particularly where it suits their interests: that doesn't mean they're going to be any less misleading than their opposition when it affects their own (RF's) interests. There is no logic in proclaiming that one source is always right and the other is always wrong. That's merely reducing the global economic power-play to a simplistic equation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's a fact based on millions of words, thousands of articles and books, and hundreds of authors who have spent decades writing about how the New York Times engages in unofficial state-sponsored journalism. Definitely not my opinion as the sources above demonstrate. Once again, you've distorted the discussion. I have never once addressed whether RT is correct or wrong nor should I have to do that. The fact is that our reliability guidelines show that RT is acceptable as a reliable source and consensus over the last five years (including this discussion) shows that to be true. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Didn't you claim to be well-versed in CHomsky? Anyone familiar with his work on the NYT with regard to, for example, the Iran-Contra affair will no that the NYT has chosen to represent the the official position of the US government over and against reality repeatedly.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit:Which is why considerable care is being taken to avoid op-eds and various sources are being used (most certainly not only NYT, BBC, etc.). Feel free to check the talk pages of articles to see how much commotion surrounds even the use of terminology in order to preserve neutrality. The articles are littered with 'according to', 'this that or the other source has reported that', the who said it (spokesperson) is made clear, and cite checking plus establishing that a variety of sources (not all via Reuters, for example) are reporting the event. No one is excluding RT (or even VoR for that matter) so long as only events are reported and any blatant POV from any side doesn't last more than a few minutes before it's tossed or rewritten. For that matter, how many research reports have you read, or even encountered, scrutinising the machinations of the RF press? Please name a few comprehensive, positive reports on RT or any other media outlet in the RF. While the Western press has gone through vivisection after vivisection, I'm unaware of any similar deconstructions of the Russian press... other than Reporters Without Borders. While they don't use a comprehensive methodology, it does serve as a reasonable benchmarking tool. The US fairs badly at no. 46 (considering that it promotes itself as being the ideal nation-state); the RF fairs very, very badly at no. 148. So, because the Russian press is happy to report on the misdeeds of the (not so) 'free world', how critical of its own backyard is it? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, there is no "clear consensus" on RT being an RS. As RGloucester has suggested, other than direct statements from spokespeople (which should be attributed), articles should be checked for the credentials of the author, loaded language, any extraordinary claims, etc. one would expect to be applied to any current affairs sources. In the case of recent events in Ukraine, RT should be handled with prejudice in light of clear bias due to RF interests vested in the area (per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). If I find any content in the numerous articles that have cropped up over the last few months (steadily growing using virtually any pretext for meeting WP:GNG) using RT alone as the source for any potentially tendentious information, I will work on the premise that I have a right to challenge that content for more or better sources or citekill that content. Without any form of discretion being applied, I might as well keep reading WSWS for all of my info: it's certainly an excellent and reliable source for historical context and analysis of current affair (in fact, over the years I've been reading it, it's beat all of the other news sources hands down for accuracy)... but mind the agenda and rhetoric. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I dispute your assessment. There is a clear, unambiguous consensus that RT is as reliable as other mainstream sources, and should be evaluated for reliability like any other source. This discussion (and previous discussions on this matter) show conclusively that there is no consensus that RT is unreliable. Therefore, the default position in place for the last five years is maintained: RT is a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear, unambiguous consensus that RT is as reliable as other mainstream sources - you are simply DELUSIONAL. Look at this discussion itself. I don't know what else to call it. "Delusional" is actually putting it very mildly, even if it's in all caps and bolded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

'There is a clear, unambiguous consensus that RT is as reliable as other mainstream sources' - i'm not seeing that. and is quoting amy goodman not part of you 'turning in a narrow circle' - i read that amy goodman and democracy now only cover the Syrian civil war from a pro-Assad point of view? so you quote a pro-Putin propaganda source as part of your campaign to defend RT - (even though you don't bother with the tiresome pursuit of following its coverage of Ukraine, Syria etc because you are proud you have no interest in any of that. you just go by your wp rules for RS. well how do they work viriditas if you don't look at RT coverage or know what you are talking about. Sorcery ? attacking everything else without addressing the question of RT? its like animal farm- every time the Stalinist pigs wanted to defend their actions they used misdirection 'you don't want farmer Jones back?!' - so here - 'you think only RT is biased?!' - no, but this is about RT. and RT is bias by design. Sayerslle (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing the bias of RT (not even viriditas or ubikwit). The question is whether their bias (significantly) influences the accuracy of their reporting for the worse (such as systematically suppress important facts when reporting on an issue, representing rumours as facts, intentionally inserting false or questionable information, etc.). Also I doubt that nonsense you've read about Amy Goodman is of any interest here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

well, yes it does, significantly, -, using fake images to support a story, only later removing, but then as they know lies are half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on, - not scrupulous about checking even when alerted beforehand as ivor crotty was apparently, - - but you have to follow its coverage don't you to see that? and isn't it too recent a propaganda set-up to be considered 'well established' anyhow. shuoldnt it have more years given it to establish its credentials? its made a poor start. (and I don't doubt the denigration of a writer on amy goodman that you don't even know is idiotic -and unless Amy goodman has written about RT why was she even brought up here?) Sayerslle (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Goodman was apparently brought up to point flaws of the NYT (Flaws of the NYT being viriditas favoured scheme to "prove" the reliability of RT). However you associated Goodman falsely with Kreml propaganda and claimed a pro Assad bias of her reporting, which isn't true either. Hence I "denigrated" that bunch of nonsense.

As far as RT faking things is concerned, I didn't argue it doesn't. Instead I argued, that is exactly what matters and what this discussion should be about (rather than its mere bias, which wouldn't disqualify it from being a reliable source anyhow)).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I believe Note 8 in the verifiability policy is worth reading. It is used as a note to exceptional claims require exceptional sources and to Questionable sources, so I am not sure it applays to news organizations at all, but anyway: A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood. It is also important to note that a conflict of interest is not considered misconduct in research, since the definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism." Erlbaeko (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well RT have been exposed numerous times engaging in fabrication and falsification, so misconduct is proven, and thus their conflict of interest is not just potential or even likely, but concrete. Therefore, RT is considered a questionable source. --Nug (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to an RT article engaging in fabrication and falsification? Erlbaeko (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The evidence, the analysis (with a link to the RT video). --Nug (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is an unsubstantiated and probably unsubstantiable assertion.

And regardless of your tendentious asserions about RT/VoR related to factual reporting, they will always be a reliable source for statements of Russian officials and the POV of the Russian government.

Repeating the same meme is becoming a bit tendentious, as such assertions aim to exclude the POV of the Russian government from Misplaced Pages, pretending as if they didn't have one or it didn't matter. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop bullshitting, I never said that. I've always agreed that RT is a reliable source for Russian government propaganda, as wacky as it, but not for much else. --Nug (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links above. I agree that somebody is lying, but I am not in a position to say who. The RT article said that video was published on Tuesday (13 May 2014) by LifeNews television. That they did is also reported by other sources. E.g. LifeNews is an independent news agency, and they are, according to WP:NEWSORG, responsible for the accuracy. If LifeNews have faked it, you should blame them for fabrication and falsification, not RT. The analysis in the INFORESIST article is based on information by the regional media center of the MoD of Ukraine. I don't know anything about them, but how do you know they are telling the truth? It is no hard evidence in that article, only a statement from a Colonel in the Ukrainian Army. He may very well have a conflict of interest. That RT did research on this story appear from this article, but again; I am not in a position to say who is telling the truth. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify my position, since my name came up: I maintain that RT that is probably mostly reliable for uncontroversial statements but should be used with caution. My position can't be summarized into a binary choice between reliable or not. Editors just need to apply judgement based on the individual use case. TheBlueCanoe 16:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Since I somehow missed this, I too will go with Number 3. Sure, it's govt owned, like BBC and NPR, so there will be biases and there will be places it's reliability should be questioned. Same is true for private/govt regulated stations like opinionated Fox News and MSNBC. I watch about an hour a day - about same as CNN and Fox (or MSNBC if a Republican's in office) - to get their spin. I've noted it's reliability has ebbed and flowed with political circumstances in Russia; just like US stations will change depending on which party is office and who is running which war. We're supposed to be intelligent enough to figure these things out on a case by case basis, bringing only the most complicated specific issues here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out numerous times (it's possible you missed it), whether a media outlet is "state owned" or not is irrelevant to whether it is a reliable source or not. Some state owned media outlets are reliable. Some are not. It depends on the outlet and it depends on the state. The Korean Central News Agency is state owned but that DOES NOT, I repeat IT DOES NOT, not in the least bit, not even teeny-weenie bit, not a nano-bit, imply that the BBC or NPR are no different then the KCNA. You're applying the wrong criteria. It's not the fact that RT is owned by the Russian government which makes it unreliable. It's that is controlled, directed, and used for propaganda purposes by the Russian government, and that it has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy that makes it unreliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a distinction between state owned (as in directly controlled) and stated (or better publicly) funded, which often gets overlooked/ignored. The latter category usually implies a greater (editorial) independence as the (executive) government has no direct access to editorial or staff decisions and often not even the budget, as these decisions are made by the parliament rather than the (executive) government. The first category however is directly controlled by the government and hence to greater degree an outlet for government propaganda. It is worthwhile to note that the BBC (and some other European public broadcasters) fall in the second category, whereas BBC World, Voice of America, RT and others fall into the first category.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

But even privately owned stations which are govt regulated risk having their licenses pulled, especially with highly partisan politicians in office or "crisises" like wars. Think about all the reporters who got kicked off the air for opposing the US war vs Iraq circa 2002-2003. What was that all about?? They are all suspect to some degree, depending on the topic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it doesn't matter whether it is state-funded, privately-funded, state controlled. That's all irrelevant here. What matters is whether they have rigorous standards for fact-checking, and are marked as reputable by reliable secondary sources. Russia Today and associated outlets are neither. Take a look at this VoR article, for instance:

The western backed junta in Kiev, installed in February of this year after years of planning by the US/CIA/USAID/NATO/EU and billions of dollars spent on NGOs, destabilization teams, installing and paying for puppets and training, arming and backing far right nazi paramilitary groups and paying mercenaries from the Greystone private CIA army, may finally be showing the first signs of what has to be its imminent demise.

Does this strike anyone as a reliable? It is yellow journalism at its finest, which unabashedly shows how nonsensical the reporting that these outlets do is. It has nothing to do with PoV, or "bias", as many have suggested, but instead with the inability to be factual. That article continues with nonsense about "Nazi juntas". There are many legitimate criticisms of the Ukrainian government, and there are many reasons why people might feel that it is illegitimate. That does not, however, have anything to do with "juntas", "CIA planning", "destabilisation teams". How can we consider such a source as this "reliable" as any other "state-owned" outlet. There is no dichotomy between "state-owned" and "privately-owned". There is a dichotomy between reliable and unreliable, quality and misery. VoR and Russia Today are often unreliable, not aways, but often. They must be used with heavy caution. RGloucester — ☎ 22:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. In cases where RT *could* be considered a reliable source - like for instances, where it is used to source uncontroversial facts - are exactly those cases in which there will be half a dozen+ sources which say exactly the same thing. So if you want to source, say, the fact that "Putin visited Crimea on dd/mm/yyyy" you *could* use RT for that. Or you could also use any number of other sources to source the same thing. So why use it?

The reason why we keep having this discussion and why it's so nasty is *precisely* because some people *want to* use RT to be able to put POV nonsense into some articles about "CIA-installed para-military Nazi juntas funded by mercenary puppy killers who hate babies and ponies", like the stuff quoted above by RGloucester. If we all agree that RT could only be used for non-controversial stuff then why have this discussion at all? Let's just drop it. Non-controversial stuff can always be sourced to other sources. So the question becomes moot.

The most common sense approach is as follows:

If an editor wants to add some text to an article and source it to RT that's fine, initially. But as soon as that text gets challenged or becomes disputed then that editor better find a whole bunch of other sources which say the same thing. If s/he is unable to find these additional reliable sources (and crap like Voice of Russia or LifeNews or some conspiracy websites don't count) then the text goes. If s/he is able to find these additional sources then the text and the RT citation can be kept, or the RT citation can be replaced by a different source, whose reliability is not questioned - that part is up to editors discretion.

What else is there to say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am late to this party, but I have read all the past discussions on this board about RT and the discussion above. My sense is that what there is consensus for, is that RT is reliable for simple, non-controversial facts. Everybody agrees on that. Once you get beyond that, there is no consensus. So it should be considered reliable for simple, non-controversial facts, and no more.Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What a long discussion. It is a pointless one unless it relates to the specific use of RT as a source in a specific article. In my view, RT is no different from other media. They choose to concentrate on certain stories and give prominence to certain viewpoints, which is exactly what every other news source does. Since normally we should use the most authoritative and relevant sources, one would expect that RT would not be used as a source very often. But there is no reason to believe that the facts they report are different from the facts on the BBC, Fox News Channel or any other news source. TFD (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

saw a tweet this morning -'Russia Today has removed its information about a evidently fake 'RAND advice' on #Ukraine. URL still there... http://rt.com/news/170572-rand-east-ukraine-plan/ …' - RT is incorrigible - how can you say 'In my view, RT is no different from other media', and then 'Since normally we should use the most authoritative and relevant sources, one would expect that RT would not be used as a source very often' - that suggests you think it is indeed different, no? - isnt it as absurd to say, for example, 'RT is as reliable as any other source on the Syrian civil war' - as it would have been back in the 1940s to say a Stalinist paper is as reliable as any other source on katyn massacre' - or to trust its 'facts' about the Spanish civil war when the stalinist press lied about 'trotskyist wreckers' - RT is a propaganda pusher. set up for the task. obviously copper-bottomed 'facts' from any place are o.k - the point is again , per tweet above, do RT seek to report as facts, propaganda and lies? I would say they are more prone to that than established accepted RS - to call pointless this discussion , is pointless, Pontius pilate style, to wash your hands and give pov editors carte blanche to take wp away and crucify it with RT b/sSayerslle (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It is ironic that you would rely on a tweet while worrying about whether RT is a reliable source. The title of the article is "'Leaked plan' on E. Ukraine suggests internment camps ..." The use of "scare quotes" implies that they do not know if it was an actual leaked plan. The article says, "The authenticity of the document which bears the RAND corporation logo, however, could not be independently verified. When asked to comment on the leaked ‘classified’ document, RAND told RT it had nothing to do with that report...." You can view the item on youtube.

There is nothing inaccurate in RT's reporting. They did not claim the memo was genuine and removed the story when they found out it was not. They presumably accurately reported what was in the memo and Rand Corporation's comments. The only issue is weight - whether or not to report a memo allegedly "leaked" to online media. Judith Miller of the New York Times wrote stories based on false information, yet the NYT is still considered a reliable source.

When I said there are more relevant and authoritative sources, that does not mean RT is not reliable, just that there are usually better sources. The New York Times for example is more relevant and authoritative for U.S. news than a suburban newspaper in New Zealand, that does not mean that the Weekly Kivi is unreliable.

TFD (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

TFD while I understand that your position is strongly held, I don't see how it reflects, or makes an effort to reflect, the discussion above nor the several discussions in the archives. As I wrote above, my read of the community's sense of the matter here, is that there is only consensus that RT is reliable for simple, noncontroversial facts. Beyond that, there is no consensus that it is reliable. I don't know if we need to ask someone to come and formally close this to get a more Misplaced Pages-process-formal read on the consensus.... what do you think? Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the point of this type of hypothetical discussion. It says at the top of this page to include the Misplaced Pages article, the page in the source and the specific text it is supposed to support. It is not the proper forum for a slanging match between people who hold differing views on the politics of Eastern Europe. What anyway is meant by "simple, noncontroversial facts." Why would we use any news source for complex, controversial facts? What are they anyway? TFD (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

oh TFD....if there is no point, why are you participating?  :) I agree that RS discussions are always better when specific statements are brought up. But RS takes general inquiries too. Back to the point, there was an effort underway to summarize and close this sprawling discussion as per the subsection in which we are writing..... thoughts on that? Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog:@The Four Deuces: You are both making good points, but in case you haven't read the entire saga above, I've started an RfC pertaining to the status of state-controlled news organizations at the WP:IRS talk page on the overarching, general issue, partly because RS/N lacks a consensus adjudication mechanism, and partly because many of those opposed to the use of RT in this thread have issued a blanket dismissal of it--if not here, in earlier threads.

The question of controversial versus noncontroversial, for example, appears in disputes regarding whether the POV of the government of a given country with a government controlled news source is a fact or opinion, and if it is opposed to the POV of the USA government, for example, even if it is considered to be a "fact" that the government has that POV, is that POV a controversial fact and therefore inadmissible, etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, between this board and the IRS RfC you've created, you have long since seriously overstepping bad faith "I want a pony" to sheer gaming the system. Enough of playing the "since there's been a huge energy sink already invested" card, considering that it is you who's been dragging it out for over a month. Forget about dropping the stick: you've gone WP:SPIDERMAN (and it's making a 'lot' of people very, very irritated). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to be funny? Or ironic maybe? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Avoid this source like the plague. Any source that gives credence to conspiracy theories, should not be used. The TLDR above may not be about a conspiracy theory, but my encounter with RT on a different article is the basis for my opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like to use RT. OK, fine. But that don't make RT banned from WP. Nor is your opinion relevant unless you start arguing for your view with regards to the guideline and the policy. In case you missed it. Some relevant citations:

• well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, ref. WP:NEWSORG.
• reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, ref. WP:BIASED.
• Misplaced Pages strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone, ref. WP:5.

And I guess you can add that the reliability of a source always depends on the context it is used in.

• Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content., ref. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

does it give guidance for establishing what 'well established' means? I mean the guardian is decades old - RT is a propaganda set up - very recently really. Sayerslle (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, very recently, in 2005 actually. And it's signal is already carried by 22 satellites and over 230 operators, which allows some 644 million people to watch the channel in more than 100 countries. Ref. RT Erlbaeko (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The original poster requested a general statement about this source, I issued a general opinion that sources that propagate conspiracy theories are NOT a reliable source. My rationale is supported by the idea that "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". No one here would claim RT presents a "majority" view in their reporting. Neither would anyone suggest they present a "significant minority" view. Conspiracy theories and theorists are considered FRINGE viewpoints on Misplaced Pages, and should be given ZERO consideration, unless we are reporting on the fringeness.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I finally did take the time to read the TLDR above. What a sad waste of time that was. That ANYONE could argue there is consensus for RT being/not being a reliable source is beyond the pale.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree to that waste of time part, and I also agree that we shouldn't use conspiracy theories. We are mostly talking about factual reporting, and attributed opinions. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

MusicHound

I think Graff, Gary; Durchholz, Daniel (1999). MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album Guide. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-1-57859-061-2. is a reliable source that is suitable for use in music articles. Is there any reason to think that its not reliable or notable enough for use on Misplaced Pages? Harmelodix (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about modern music, but I do know a few things about sources. Visible Ink Press has an article, seems it's been around since 1989, and is not a vanity press. Gary Graff has an article, seems to be an established music journalist. Daniel Durcholz seems to have written for Rolling Stone. The two of them have written at least one other book about modern rock music together. So a book from a real publishing house by two expert authors. Looks like a fine reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, GRuban. That's what I thought! Harmelodix (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugg Boots Reliable Source

Recently an IP editor proposed a change in a paragraph of the Ugg boots article and as one may expect from the troubled history of that article, he encountered an objection. The source is the Peoria Journal Star, the daily newspaper with the largest circulation in downstate Illinois (62,000), and WP:NEWSORG would seem to fit like a glove:

"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact ..."

The Journal Star, like any other major daily, has fact checkers and there's no indication that the statement in question failed to be submitted to fact-checking, or that it failed to pass such scrutiny. No contradictory claim from any other reliable source has been provided.

The objection claims that for a statement of fact about world market share, one must use a source specializing in business and financial reporting. Evidently only a publication like The Wall Street Journal or Money magazine would do.

I don't see any language supporting such a claim in Misplaced Pages policy. If the objecting editor wishes to argue in favor of a change of Misplaced Pages policy to support his claim, then he should do so in the proper channels. Until he succeeds in obtaining such a change in policy, the edit to include this reliable source should stand.--Factchk (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is about this edit? Then I have to ask, how does this article back the statement "The manufacturer of this style of footwear with a dominating share of the worldwide market is Deckers, which reportedly has 95% of the worldwide market share."? I don't see the 95% number in the article. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that's not in the article. This source is obviously not reliable for a claim it doesn't make. It could probably be a source for some of the claims it does make. That sentence should be recast, rewritten, or removed. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Business Insider references a CNN article making the 95% claim. ETA: The claim might be in the CNN video, I'm not watching it just now.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect the 95% claim might be corporate marketing. I see "95%" all over the place in blogs and Ugg related sites, but so far nothing verifiable. And considering this company allegedly attempted to "schwag" celeberity guests attending Phillip Seymour Hoffman's funeral with Ugg footware, I vote for extra care being placed on claims that may have originated from this corporation.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The CNN article cited does not make the claim either. It's a ridiculous claim on the face of it. If you define "the footwear" as Deckers Officially-sanctioned/licensed Boots, they have 100% share, just as Coca-Cola ultimately has 100% share of Coca-Cola sales. If talking about the boot style, there's no way one company has 95% global share. This is promotional copy gone wrong and should be removed or re-written somehow.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing ridiculous about the claim because it's from a reliable source. All of the above is speculation about "corporate marketing" and "promotional copy." This fact had to survive fact checking at an established news organization and according to WP:NEWSORG policy, it is reliable. The reliable source is here: Nobody has provided a source supporting this "promotional copy" claim. There is no contradicting claim, saying that it's less than 95% in any reliable source anywhere that has been provided by the opponents of this edit. Policy has to count for something, because it represents the consensus of the entire Misplaced Pages community. The blogs and other sources mentioned in this discussion probably got this 95% figure from the original Journal Star article or from the Misplaced Pages article, both of which do exist, and not from any alleged "promotional copy" which has not been proven to exist. Speculation on one side unsupported by any sources, and reliable source policy on the other side. This is an open and shut case. 2602:306:C56F:500:A41D:BA2:E497:CB62 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As anyone can see, the claim does not exist in "the original Journal Star article" you are trying to use. Nobody can impugn the Peoria Journal Star's general reliability, but they don't say what you are saying that they say. Maybe you didn't read the article before you started defending its honor?__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"By 2010, all of the Australian manufacturers combined added up to only 5.9 percent of Deckers sales for Ugg boots alone." If you'd like, I can paraphrase that and put it into the article, citing the source. Agreed? 2602:306:C56F:500:A41D:BA2:E497:CB62 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have based your edit on a math failure. That isn't talking about global sales, that's comparing Australian manufacturers with Deckers alone. It gives no sense of how many shoes of that general style are made by non-Australian/non-Deckers manufacturers. All that says is that Australian manufacturers are not global powerhouses in footwear production. You can't use that to extrapolate global production. Editors especially can't do that if they're attempting to promote a specific company. You're demonstrating the dangers of WP:OR and fudging statistics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't what the edit said. You just moved the sentence from the beginning of the paragraph to the end. It seems that the only "promotional copy" is on behalf of the Australian manufacturers (5.9% of the world market) in an effort to diminish the notability of Deckers (94.1% of the world market). Deckers is more notable by a factor of 19 to 1 and should be mentioned first, in this paragraph and in the paragraph that preceds it. Reliable 1too (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Where does the source say "world market"? That is not in the source. It is not what it says. Those words are just being added by editors (I think possibly just you, if you are the same as the dynamic IP and Factchk? Have you switched usernames?) Again, saying "Australian manufacturers produce a fraction of Deckers sales" is not statistically or otherwise equivalent to saying "Deckers are the only people besides Australian manufacturers making a style of footwear". We say what's in the source without misrepresenting the statistic.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we moved past any objection to the reliability of the source. Thanks for that. At this point we're discussing what the article should say, based on that source (and others). For that we have the article Talk page. Reliable 1too (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Back to the reliability of the claimed source, noting that it may or may not support the claim being made by the editor, I fail to see how what is in effect a local newspaper can be considered a reliable source for matters of worldwide trade. Does this newspaper have any reputation at all in fiscal circles, especially of global significance? If this claim were justified there would be similar claims available in sources with real reputations in the area, which we do not see. This one just does not cut it. - Nick Thorne 02:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, we've already moved on, and consensus is clearly against you. See Elaquete's remark: "Nobody can impugn the Peoria Journal Star's general reliability ..." This is a previously uninvolved editor. The question was taken to the RSN board as you requested, and we have the answer now. It's a reliable source. So let's move on. Reliable 1too (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Although it would be nice if you didn't misrepresent me or quote me out of context. The part you leave out of that sentence was that it shouldn't be used to back up material not found in the source, and it should, of course, be paraphrased in a way that does not run afoul of WP:OR or WP:NPOV. Is Deckers a large manufacturer of UGG brand footwear? Yes. Can we extrapolate that beyond what the sources say? No. The reliability of a source for a particular claim sometimes (not always) depends on its timeliness and I admit I would question a source from nearer the height of the Ugg fashion fad as being necessarily true regarding sales statistics of today, when Uggs are clearly not as popular. It would also be nice, on a separate note, for you to clear up whether you've changed user names, or if you have any COI to declare. Your replies seem to be a continuation of earlier conversations. This is the second time I'm asking. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm the "dynamic IP editor." I created an account. I am not Fackchk. I do not have a conflict of interest. The source is clearly defining its time frame as 2010 and it's been accurately represented that way. The paraphrasing is painstakingly accurate now. I'm sorry if you feel you were quoted out of context or misrepresented, but you appeared to find this source reliable, and Factchk clearly finds it reliable, so it appears we have consensus, noting Nick's lone dissent. Can we move on? Reliable 1too (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the issue has not even been discussed here, let alone been resolved. Furthermore this discussion appears to have been held without any notice to interested parties - for example on the article concerned talk page - why was that? The discussion about whether the newspaper in question is a reliable source for the claims being made has not been addressed in the slightest. For the newspaper in question to be considered to be a reliable source for the claim being made, it needs to be established that it has a reputation in that area. The fact that there appears to be little or no corroborating reports from other sources suggests that in this case the newspaper may not be the most reliable source at all. Frankly the item in the newspaper reads like a fluff piece. It finishes with "Jim Davis is a Glendale Heights resident who graduated from Peoria High School and Illinois State University. He presently works in information technology at a Chicago law firm and does freelance writing on the side" This does not inspire confidence that the article is anything but a veiled advertising blurb on behalf of Deckers. Even the most reputable newspapers contain articles written that fall into this category. The article is not from the editorial pages of the newspaper and there is no evidence that the author has any expertise to make statements about international trade issues. There is no way that this item can be considered on its own to be a reliable source for the claims being made.

Oh, and please learn how to indent your posts correctly. - Nick Thorne 00:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.pjstar.com/article/20111227/News/312279892#ixzz36Aink9IV

That article is insufficiently clear for the point you wish to make. Does it refer to ugg boot sales in the United States, or for the whole world? Does it refer to all ugg boot sales up to that year, or only for 2010? It is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to make such vague and sweeping claims, sourced only to an unclearly written puff piece for Deckers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the consensus here is that this source is not backing up the claims being made.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

About the new editor making the old arguments about whether this is a reliable source.

Something I really should have done earlier in this thread: look at the RSN archives. Apparently this source was the topic for the same wording for the same article in January 2012. Here's the thread. The main editor who wanted this Peoria newspaper certified as a reliable source then was User:Phoenix and Winslow, an editor who is currently indef blocked for multiple sockpuppet violations. In the thread he relies repetitively on the policies WP:NEWSORG and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The main champion for it today is Reliable 1too, who seems to have created an account for the sole purpose of putting in material based on this source. He has also cited WP:NEWSORG and WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. In fact, I have not found any arguments that Reliable 1too has made to be materially different from the original arguments made by User:Phoenix and Winslow. Are there any editors that can help me see a difference between these two editors? They both cite UGG Australia trademark case law, WP:NEWSORG, variations of the phrase "dominate the the worldwide market", they both insist the circulation for the Peoria Journal Star is 65,000 and that is good. They both claim that the Journal Star has an excellent team of "fact checkers". They both complain of "Australian editors". The only difference I can see between them is one is blocked for sockpuppetry and one is brand new.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you log that evidence here. As I understand it, the data that Checkusers have access to will be stale by now, but at least the probable sock can be recorded. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if you have valid suspicious of new sockpuppet activity, please re-open an SPI case as suggested above. Thank you, Tiptoety 17:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources to support existence of category Violence against men?

Hello. A recent discussion at the Fringe noticeboard was shut down and it was proposed to open a new thread to look specifically at sources I had gathered.

The root of the dispute is the categories Category:Violence against men and Category:Massacres of men, both of which are being proposed for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Massacres_of_men (feel free to weigh in there if you like).

The sources in question have been gathered at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Additional_sources_that_cover_the_topic_of_gender-based_violence_against_men and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Further_sources. For the first link, I gathered a few key sources and pulled some quotes so people wouldn’t have to download PDFs, for the second link I just have the links to the sources and I grouped them thematically - though I should note in my research I focused on sexual/gender based violence in conflict, there are a lot of other sources around domestic violence which I didn’t include.

So, the question for this board is, do the sources provided above SUPPORT the claim, which is as follows:
Sexual and gender-based violence against men (the stated scope of the category) is a topic that is encyclopedic, that is studied in the literature, and could support a category whereby articles could be fruitfully classified underneath

In response to the categories, some of the contents, the sources I have provided, and my defense of these categories with these sources, I and others have been accused of shilling for the MRM, pushing a partisan POV, being a misogynist, having a sexist agenda, cherry-picking sources, quote-mining, and so on. Again, we are not writing an article, ONLY defending the continued existence of a category, but unfortunately none of those who want the category deleted are actually detailing their problems with the sources, or explaining in what way I'm cherry picking, so I'm hoping to get other views.

You can read here to see some of the attacks and vitriol Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#MRA_fringe_material - unfortunately the main discussant was unwilling to provide sources to back up their claims, or to disprove my claims, so the discussion had no point any more.

At the CFD discussion, one editor said “just another example of MRM soapboxing and POV-pushing. Misplaced Pages is being used to promote a sexist, misogynist agenda.” The accusations of POV pushing for defending this category are legion. It hasn't been stated clearly what the POV is, nor how existence of a category promotes that POV.

So, I’m asking you reliably reliable people here, to take a look at the sources, look at as many or as few as you like, and make a judgement as to whether the claim above is supported by those sources, and whether the sources I’ve provided above are reliable, and whether I am using or misusing them to promote a POV in so-making this claim (e.g. that the category should continue to exist)

A secondary question, if you'd care to weigh in, is whether Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) is a reliable source in the field of genocide studies, because the work of Adam Jones on Gendercide is especially useful in helping to define the parameters of the Category:Massacres of men and Category:Massacres of women categories. Specifically, can and the case studies be used (in part) to defend Category:Massacres of men and the claim that such massacres are an instance of gender-based violence, that men (or women) are targeted for death because of their gender, and the claim that reliable sources talk about or group together such gendercide or sex-selective massacres separately from other massacres? Two editors have claimed that Jones is not a reliable source or that he is FRINGE.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi @Obiwankenobi: Without commenting on the primary question, I would consider Adam Jones a reliable source in most contexts related to his professional interests. Not every single one of his beliefs is completely inline with mainstream academic thought, but that's true of pretty much every academic in the world. He's a full professor at a very well regarded university, his work is cited by a pretty solid number of people, and he's written some texts that are quite widely used. I know of no reason why he would be broadly disregarded as a potential source. I editconflicted with you while writing this response, so it's formulated to answer your original post instead of the specific question you pose about one of his works now. I'm a bit too sleepy to want to do enough analysis to give a good answer to the specific question you've posed, but I'll do so tomorrow if no one beats me to it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• JPS's argument doesn't seem to make much sense in light of the sources you provided. I don't think the FRINGE argument holds up. Shii (tock) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You really ought to notify people when you mention them. What do you think my argument is? Can you provide a diff and explain it? jps (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed. The men's rights movement exists and the literature is fairly extensive. Just two examples: MSNBC reported on a men's rights conference in Michigan and there's an article in The Atlantic. These are progressive mainstream sources, not right-wing sources. The movement appears to be substantial if not massive, and whether feminists like it or want it to exist is immaterial. 2602:306:C56F:500:A41D:BA2:E497:CB62 (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; however the question is about gender-based violence against men, not the men's rights movement. Any thoughts on that topic, given the sources above?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm the "dynamic IP editor" above and I created this account (see UGG boots discussion above). Your question seems to be whether "Sexual and gender-based violence against men (the stated scope of the category) is a topic that is encyclopedic, that is studied in the literature, and could support a category whereby articles could be fruitfully classified underneath" is supported by the sources. My answer to that is "Yes." Reliable 1too (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• One more piling on. Obi-Wan has provided a mountain of reliable sources that this is a subject of serious study. --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • So which source in this mountain do you see as the most reliable for establishing that the broad subject of "Violence against men" is a subject of serious study? jps (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sarah Solangon & Preeti Patel (2012). "Sexual violence against men in countries affected by armed conflict". Conflict, Security & Development.
    • Eric Stener Carlson (2006). "The Hidden Prevalence of Male Sexual Assault During War: Observations on Blunt Trauma to the Male Genitals". Br J Criminol.
    • Template:Cite article
    • Sandesh Sivakumaran. "Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict". Eur J Int Law.
    • Wynne Russel. "Sexual violence against men and boys" (PDF). Forced Migration Review.
    • Dustin Lewis (2009). "Unrecognized victims: Sexual violence against men in conflict settings under International Law". Ws. Int'l L. J (1).
    • R. Charli Carpenter (March 2006). "Recognizing Gender-Based Violence against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations". Security Dialogue.
    • Mervyn Christiana, Octave Safarib, Paul Ramazanib, Gilbert Burnhamc & Nancy Glass (2011). "Sexual and gender based violence against men in the Democratic Republic of Congo: effects on survivors, their families and the community". Medicine, Conflict and Survival.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Template:Cite article

It's pretty clearly a subject of study by a diversity of academics in different journals. --GRuban (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I asked for only one, so since you don't seem to make any claim to primacy, I'll assume you think every single one of these sources is just as good as all the rest. I'll deal only with the first source for now. That source does not separate, categorically, violence into "violence against men" and "violence against women". In fact, it does quite the opposite. Quoting from the abstract: "This study concludes that gendered binaries and strict gender roles are primarily responsible in accentuating sexual violence against men in terrorising and humiliating victims, and must be addressed." The authors actually argue that instances of sexual violence against men are also instances of violence against women. So are we to label every single article with both categories? Do you consider that a reasonable reading of the entire text? If not, where in the text do you find the authors are arguing that there are instances of violence that is perpetrated only against men that would justify the categorization of an article into solely that category? jps (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with such a cat? After all, "Men were victims of just over a quarter of incidents of domestic violence in 2010, according to the British Crime Survey" Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How do you decide what belongs to such a category especially when the topic is being used as a political football by MRAs? Seems to me that the sole purpose for the category is a WP:POINTy WP:GEVAL move and I don't see the actual text in the above list as being indicative of being able to categorize any article as "violence against men" independent of other considerations. jps (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Domestic violence against men Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely a particularly bad article. I have thought about taking it to AfD as a WP:POVFORK, but hadn't gotten around to it yet. Yes, one could find examples of articles on Misplaced Pages which are MRM staging grounds (such as the one you point to), but that's not a very convincing argument to me. We aren't Mensrightsapedia, after all. jps (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we're not. We're Everythingapedia, and "everything" includes men's rights. If you think the article is bad, improve the article. That's far more constructive than complaining about it and trying to get it deleted. Reliable 1too (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hard to know whether this is a parody or a serious comment. I guess that just shows how shit this subject has become at this website. Anyway, thanks for backing me up whether you intended to or not. jps (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There certainly is a men's rights movement, which possibly justifies a category. But "violence against men" is a concept in the men's rights movement which they use to interpret events. So for example, the Nazis murdered the men at Lidice, but deported the women. I suppose one could interpret this as showing the Nazis had an anti-male, pro-feminist agenda. But that is a fringe view. So the proposed categories are inherently POV. TFD (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So they're claiming that forcible deportations of women when accompanied by the slaughter of men belongs only in the violence against men category? Do I have that about right? jps (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CAT:

The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Misplaced Pages pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.

So, what are the defining characteristic of articles which will belong to this category? Further, can someone please point me to a guideline which describes how we are to evaluate whether or not a category should exist? Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You've done it just now. WP:CAT. A category should exist if it is realistic that readers should want a way to get to all our articles about incidents of violence against men because they are men. It seems clear that is realistic. --GRuban (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That criteria seems rather fuzzy. How do we know if it is realistic? Are we to look at some kind of metrics? Or is it a matter of the number of reliable sources out there discussing a category as applied to some minimum number of distinct subjects?

I thought perhaps we could apply our guidelines for notability here. This is from WP:PAGEDECIDE:

Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).

So maybe instead of just discussing the notability of the topic, we should also be looking at the amount and kinds of pages which will be included in this category. SueDonem (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Question. Would this | incident be representative of such a category? What about a "justice" category (though this seems more like Batman style justice). I'm perplexed as why there is vehement opposition to this category. That there is violence against men simply because they are male, should not surprise anyone. The claim that pro-male advocates may misuse the category doesn't negate the existence that there is violence against men and can be thus categorized.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• This doesn't appear to be a good fit for this would-be category. The violence wasn't targeted upon the person because he was a man, but rather because he was a rapist. Per my question about, I would be most interested in a list of potential articles for this category. SueDonem (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Science by press release in Neonicotinoid article

The following content was added to the Neonicotinoid article in this dif:

"In June 2014, in the most comprehensive scientific assessment by The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides researchers have concluded that excessive use of neonicotinoids has contaminated the environment across the planet to the extent that global food production is at risk. The team observed that the pesticides harm bees and other pollinators, which fertilise about three-quarters of the world’s crops, and the organisms that create the healthy soils needed to grow crops."

Sources provided for that content were:

• http://www.tfsp.info
• http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/24/insecticides-world-food-supplies-risk

Discussion on Talk page is here.

I reverted this because the content is garbled and nonencyclopedic, and the sources are not reliable for claims in the proposed content. It turns out that the Guardian article is based on a press release) which says: "*The full WIA {NB: the actual scientific publication - the "comprehensive review" mentioned in the content} will be published in the Springer Journal within the next few weeks. Date to be confirmed by the Journal". This is a case of science by press release which is widely considered bad form in the scientific community. The mission of WP is to provide reliable information to the public, so we should wait for the article to publish and for the scientific community to react to it; we don't jump on the bandwagon generated by the press release. Others disagree. Hence this posting. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither a press release nor a newspaper article are suitable sources for the kind of weighty scientific information conveyed by the proposed edit. If indeed a piece of research is going to appear soon in a scholarly publication, there is no harm in waiting for that. Alexbrn 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Source. EllenCT (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the published article. That is a draft of part of the article, posted by the group that generated the article on their website. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that they are not a reliable source for the assertion that their article has been accepted for publication? EllenCT (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

no that is not what i am saying. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see an rs problem. News media are generally poor sources for science articles because of weight issues. So an article "Scientists claim possible link between eating carrots and living longer" is not generally used not because it is unreliable, i.e., wrong about what the scientists did or said, but because it has not yet gained significance for the topic.

Incidentally, the report is not a primary study, but a meta-analysis from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which has Official Observer Status at the UN That they have made this claim is significant.

TFD (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks TFD. The issue here is that the actual review article (I agree it will be a secondary source) has not published yet and so the only support for the proposed content at this time is the press release and Guardian article; the rs question is whether they can be used to support the proposed content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was published in The Guaridan, one of the world's most respected newspapers, and was written by their head environment writer, who has a PhD in earth sciences. How is it unreliable? TFD (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. So you think that the proposed content is fine, with the sources provided. That is surprising to me. Can you please say a bit about why you think it is OK in WP to discuss scientific findings that haven't been published yet? I work on a lot of health stuff and in that field, there is no way that we would include health-related content based on a press release and a follow up article in the popular media (no matter how prestigious the newspaper). The popular media is not considered reliable secondary sources for health content. Very interested in reasoned perspectives on how to apply in RS in this field, which is also biology-based. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't answer your question directly. The actual source is the scientific article, which hasn't published yet. The Guardian report hews closely to the press release I linked to above. In my view, when WP is doing its best, science-based claims are supported by reviews in the scientific literature; in this case - the review article, which we cannot cite yet. As an aside I also think that science by press release is pretty reprehensible - a politicization of science. I'd rather that WP not partake in it, no matter if it is coming from "the good guys" or "the bad guys". In WP:MEDRS we have specific guidance against using press releases and media follow up on them as sources for content (see here if you are not familiar with that bit) that defends WP against this. I get it that editors who want to ban neonics are excited by the buzz that TFSP has succeeded in generating (a very slick campaign!) and want to run with it; but this is not WP at is best (nor how it should be at all). The review will publish in good time and there is no deadline; we are not a newspaper. That is my reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not as if we were using it as a source for a scientific fact, saying something like the "use of neonicotinoids is responsible for colony collapse disorder", with no qualification or "In-text attribution." We are merely reporting what a group of scientists rightly or wrongly claim. There is no doubt that the sources support what they have said.

MEDRS anyway does not apply. There is no claim that neonicotinoids directly harm humans, rather the claim is that they harm bees. Certainly that may indirectly harm humans, but then so do wars, crime, poverty, and many other evils. But no one insists that only medical journals can be used to report those topics.

TFD (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. However, I did not say that MEDRS applies and was careful not to... I did say that I think MEDRS is very sound wrt to the way it handles science and the media! You make a very good point, that the proposed content doesn't try to make claims about reality and instead does in-text attribution. Thanks for that. You are not addressing the "science by press release" thing, nor how we should handle science-based content outside the field of health, and I can only take that as signalling that those are issues that you don't want to get into. In any case thanks again for the discussion - we don't agree but I do appreciate the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How would you compare the relative effectiveness of science communication to that of science by insertion of manufacturers' paid advocacy sources designed to appear to be literature reviews? Which is more likely to achieve more widely shared beneficial goals? EllenCT (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Unclear what this has to do with whether the sources provided are RS for the proposed content.Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead having a lengthy argument about the guardian or the press release it seems much more prudent to me just to wait for the actual scientific report/article to be properly published. Then we can have a look at it and eventually/most likely use it. Arguing now about the guardian and the press release seems like waste of time as those two obviously very inferior sources and the whole situation would need to be reevaluated anyhow in a months or so when real article is published. In short don't use guardian/press release now and wait for the real thing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you think the authors are not a reliable source for the assertion that their article has been accepted for publication? EllenCT (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

that is neither the problem nor the point.Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Source reliability is always framed in the context of the specific statement that the source is being used to suppport, in this case the statement:

• has contaminated the environment across the planet to the extent that global food production is at risk.

Is incredibly sensational and not supportable by a popular media article giving its impression of a press release of an unpublished scientific article. There's plenty of published data on the harm caused by neonicotinoids on various invertebrate populations including european honey bees important for pollinating agricultural crops, native bee populations, and various worm populations, let's stick to discussing these things rather than emulating the sensationalized tabloid style of presenting information.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if the real complaint is not whether the study is accurately reported but how it is described. The article already covers the claims about alleged environmental effects of neonicotinoids. Can't we just add that a yet to be published paper has been reported to strengthen these claims? TFD (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Polemically speaking previous review studies/secondary publication tended to "downplay" the negative impact of neonicotinoids due to the fact that most of the studies indicating harm did so by using unrealistic dosages/conditions and neonicotinoid article reflects that appropriately. Now if the most recent review article/meta-anaysis puts a strong emphasis on the negative impact of neonicotinoid might shift the WP article significantly. Hence this might be a particularly important source with a significant impact on the article. Imho that is all the more reason to wait for its official publication rather than using newspapers or press releases.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't normally bother with general assessments of a sources reliability, but focus on whether it is reliable enough for specific claims. That said the study is *not* accurately portrayed by this source, and this post by the IUCN much better characterizes the study

Opening line

• Guardian: The world’s most widely used insecticides have contaminated the environment across the planet so pervasively that global food production is at risk, according to a comprehensive scientific assessment of the chemicals’ impacts.(doesn't give source of info, doesn't specify which insecticides are being used and casually speculates about pervasive global contamination and endangerment of our food production)
• IUCN: The conclusions of a new meta-analysis of the systemic pesticides neonicotinoids and fipronil (neonics) confirm that they are causing significant damage to a wide range of beneficial invertebrate species and are a key factor in the decline of bees.(Gives source of study, specific info on pesticides and the harm they are causing)

Conclusion of the study as reported by both sources

• Guardian:Billions of dollars’ worth of the potent and long-lasting neurotoxins are sold every year but regulations have failed to prevent the poisoning of almost all habitats, the international team of scientists concluded in the most detailed study yet. (We still don't know who these people are, but apparently nearly every habitat on Earth has been contaminated by these insecticides whose identities have not yet been told to us)
• IUCN: Already stated in their opening sentence

Description of methods:

• Guardian: The new report, called the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on Systemic Pesticides, analysed every peer-reviewed scientific paper on neonicotinoids and another insecticide called fipronil since they were first used in the mid-1990s. (It is highly dubious that they analyzed all those papers)
• IUCN: Undertaking a full analysis of all the available literature (800 peer-reviewed reports) the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides (giving a number is good, also good that they choose "all the available literature" which doesn't limit the study to peer-reviewed literature, especially since if this report is thorough it will make use of at least some of the substantial grey literature in this field)

In general the IUCN article is more detailed and accurate and would be a much better source for this article than the Guardian article. If any mention of this study has to be made before it actually comes out then I would recommend using the IUCN article. While the Guardian may be a well-known newspaper, newspapers usually have difficulty covering scientific topics, and often over-sensationalize and over-simplify their articles.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, AioftheStorm. To be clear, I and others have argued that we should wait til the scientific article publishes. The IUCN piece is a press release. It too is science by press release and WP should not be jumping on bandwagons this way. When the scientific article - which promises to be a review - a secondary source - publishes, we should read it and generate content based on it. Not on the press release by TFSP nor the press release by IUCN (which created TFSP) nor on the Guardian story which is based on the press releases. (Both the TFSP and the IUCN press releases fail WP:INDY, btw) Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and only mentioned usage of the IUCN article because I realise that sometimes things just don't end up optimally and users may want to input some mention of this review and if they do I would recommend the IUCN article over the Guardian article. I really would prefer no science by press release at all and always just waiting for articles to come out.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

gotcha, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington Times

Is this newspaper a reliable source for opinions expressed in an interview?

The edit in question is which appears to state an opinion of people interviewed, and the response by Mr. Berlat to that opinion.

In the past, "opinions properly cited as opinions" have been held to be reliably sourced to interviews even ones by "Moonie rags" as one editor opined.

Are interviews in "Moonie rags" usable for opinions cited as opinions, or are they attaint by the mere virtue of being "Moonie rags"?

Prior discussions are at:

which reached no solid decision on a matter of fact.

has no conclusion other than "Moon is bad".

found it reliable for its own editorial opinion

None have found the Washington Times to not be a reliable source for opinions expressed as opinions, and none have accused the Washington Times of not being a reliable source for contents of interviews expressing opinions. That I can find, of course. Collect (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet a million euros that this turns out to be a WEIGHT or NPOV issue that doesn't belong at this noticeboard. Formerip (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reliable. It's a modern, western newspaper following good journalistic practices.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Formally reliable maybe (depending on the context), but following "good journalistic practices"? Please ...., the paper belongs to the moon sect and is or was in many regards hack with anything but "good journalistic practices".--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Fact checking, editors, request for comment, yes yes and yes.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hell no--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the enlightened commentary.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not an rs issue, it belongs at NPOVN. It is not clear btw whether the story is a news article or an editorial, since it is by Robert Stacy McCain who wrote both op-eds and news articles for the Sun Myung Moon newspaper. Oddly, some of his work included, according to the SPLC, sympathetic coverage of the neo-confederate League of the South, to which he once belonged. TFD (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The material is actually from an interview. Thus interviews are generally considered usable -- the person quoted in the interview has an opinion, thus such opinions are citable as opinions. The issue is not about whether the source is an "editorial column" at all. Is the interview usable? Or is it attaint because it is written by a person who worked for the dreaded Moonies? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A more subjective term than "identify" might help resolve the issue. For example, replacing "identify" with "claim" would clarify that Misplaced Pages is not saying the claim is valid: " In a critique of the LaRouche network, John George and Laird Wilcox identify Berlet as an example... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 July 2014

How to (not) do large scale cleanup

How should non-RS be cleaned up? I think that replacing the source with {{cn}} would be the way to go in most cases. Perhaps with {{dubious}}, in others. Special:Contributions/Bobrayner shows Bobrayner has been doing a bunch of cleanup. Cleanup is good. But the pattern of this edit concerns me. "300 tonnes a day" is supported by this RS. So, my question is, when we have a non-RS, is it appropriate to simply remove the unsourced claims? When I entered "fukushima water" into google, it completed with "leak per day", and brought up the Guardian piece. I see an edit pattern starting here. --{{U|Elvey}} 01:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no general answer to that, one needs to use common sense and consider the given context. Principally unsourced content can be removed, but that should be understood as wholesale, "mindless" removal of content anytime sources are missing or are not RS. Instead you should assess the content if possible and if the content is likely to be true or you know it to be true, then the tags you mentioned above should be used and the content should not be removed. If however you have good reason to believe the content being wrong, then remove it. Also libelous content and negative assessments in biographies should always be removed if not sourced properly, that is by a RS (see WP:BLP for that).--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I generally agree, though I think it would be inappropriate to use {{dubious}} in the way you suggest; I'm guessing you didn't meant to suggest that, as a dubious claim is one that is not likely to be true. It looks to me like there's a pattern of deleting the non-RS, and removing the unsourced claims, without assessing the content. I'm not sure what to do about that. I would just like Bobrayner to be a bit more cautious when deleting, in accord with your answer, and put back the "300 tones a day" supported by this RS. --{{U|Elvey}} 19:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is a dysfunctional website a reliable source?

After repeatedly trying to post information in the Melissa Ann Young article sourced to https://fundanything.com, and being told that the self-published website wasn't reliable, Benrudin is now back trying to insert the same dubious information sourced by http://www.thepageantplanet.com. I can't even get the thepageantplanet.com website to open. Considering that there is not one single online source to this information to be found with a Google search, it seems highly likely that thepageantplanet.com simply got its information from fundanything.com. Could someone take a look at the thepageantplanet.com website to see if it's just copying information from the fundanything.com and if not, whether the website is reliable? Thanks. 32.218.38.81 (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Should creationist theologians and authors without formal education from biblical history be used as sources for historic claims, regarding biblical figures?

Sources There are 3 primary sources whose reliability I question.

1. , Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament
2. Jan van Tuyl A New Chronology for Old Testament Times
3. Bible Horizon article and the quote of Oswald T. Allis found there.

Article Kurkh Monoliths

Content This primary researches were used to claim in the lead of the article, that "scholars disputed "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" as a proposed reference to Ahab of Israel." However nowhere I have found such dispute in academic scholarship, "A-ha-ab-bu Sir-ila-a-a" represents the only Assyrian text referring to Ahab and Israel under this name. Shigeo Yamada explains why not the common Assyrian term for Israel (mar Humri) was used."The indication of a single state by two alternative names is not unusual in the inscription of Shalmaneser, as witnessed also in alterations between Patin and Ulqi, between Samaal and Bit Gabbar and between Yahan and Bit Agusi...N.Nadav suggest that Yehu designation as Mar Humri was deliberately made by Shalmaneser in order to legitimize the new Israeli king, who adopted pro-Assyrian policy"

Ahab, the king of Northern Kingdom Israel/Samaria was described by Bible as minor, negative polytheistic ruler. However historic science regarding Northen Kingdom (Israel Finkelstein Nadav Neeman and others) dispute this. In my opinion,the main reason why this creationist theologians would try to negate that the Kurkh Monolith refers to Ahab of Israel is because this inscription contradicts biblical accounts. (Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History's Intriguing edited by Steven L. Danver P.308) Ahab was capable to assemble a large force to Assyrian war coalition according to the Kurkh monolith . Also. Shalmaneser III of Assyria wars, are fully extra-biblical events and the Kurk monolith inscription contradicts biblical accounts. The 3 sources that question this translation are the following:

• Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones.Although little can be found about Dr. Jones on net, he has been described as "Floyd Nolen Jones is a Christian author. He has recorded a bible study for twenty years, and has written several books on Christianity. He is an apparent Young Earth Creationist who supported a beginning age to life on earth of 4004 B.C" In the summary of this book it was wrriten"Author Floyd Nolen Jones carefully and thoroughly investigates that chronological and mathematical facts of the Old Testament, proving them to be accurate and reliable" His personal site describe him as "Dr. Jones is currently engaged in ongoing biblical research and the teaching of God’s infallible Word He writes: God’s salvation is qualified only by our response. God elects whosoever elects to accept His invitation, those who choose to respond, God chooses to save. The unregenerate is not ignorant of God’s call; rather they choose to ignore it in favor of their own wisdom, and God let’s them do so as His Word reveals."
• The second source questioned is Jan van Tuyl, He and the book used as reference is described by the publisher as "Jan van Tuyl, is not a professional biblical expert, but he is a dedicated, intelligent, and thorough scholar who has gone out of his way to include both secular and spiritual texts, well-known and rare treatises, and modern and ancient translations to examine the period of 5500 years that ran from the arrival of Adam in the Old Testament to the birth of Jesus in the Gospels A New Chronology (when it pops) is an absorbing, amusing, historical narrative—relatively spiritual, but not above cracking the occasional joke. Van Tuyl raises questions that may mirror those of many curious readers. Did Moses really float down the Nile in a basket? Where did Adam and Eve get their clothes? How culpable was Pilate in Christ’s crucifixion? How prevalent was inbreeding in the lives of the biblical patriarchs? Did Ezekiel ride in a spaceship? One must give van Tuyl credit: when he follows his better instincts, he can resuscitate biblical content that doesn’t exactly leap off the page. Who knew angels might have procreated with humans?As one might expect from the title, van Tuyl is obsessed with numeric details, such as Noah’s age when his first son was born, how many years passed when God was creating the Earth, how old Sarah was when she conceived her notoriously improbable child. The down side to this obsession is that after a while, one doesn’t necessarily care that five sources disagree on how old Abraham was when he had his Bar Mitzvah."
• The third source is an article in bible horizons which quotes Oswald Thompson Allis an American Presbyterian theologian who has been described as conservative Christian theologian who believed in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Skilton, "Oswald T. Allis," P:129 His book "God spake by Moses. An exposition of the Pentateuch, with emphasis on the Mosaic authorship by Oswald Thompson Allis (1951)" is used by Presbyterian church.

-Contrary, to this creationist theologians modern scholarship does not support that the translation of "Israel" is contraversial: Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction By Nadav Naʼaman, Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives By Jonathan Michael Golden P:275 Shigeo Yamada The Construction of the Assyrian Empire P:193, The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn P.10. L. Grabbe "Ahab what we know" etc. I believe that creationist theologians and their primary sources, are not reliable sources regarding historical artifacts connected to biblical figures due to 1) lack of formal education from historic fields 2)conflict of interests 3) Because they are not mentioned or quoted by extra-theological scholarship --Tritomex (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A splendid example of "opinions must be cited as opinions" as the key issue -- if the creationists are "notable" by Misplaced Pages standards then their opinions may well also be notable, but such opinions in any case should not be given as "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. Collect (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this creationist are not notable according to Misplaced Pages standards. This are all primary sources and primary researches, as secondary academic sources do not even mention them. Also, their primary research went directly to the lead of the article implying that there is scholarly dispute about the translation. While the translation is supported by numerous academic sources, those who "dispute" it, are this creationist theologians and a creationist author without any formal education from biblical history --Tritomex (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If they aren't notable by Misplaced Pages criteria and their only apparent notability is self-described from their own websites, then we can't use them as reliable sources. If these guys aren't known outside their own book blurbs then God knows there are any number of actual respected biblical scholars and historians we may turn to. Why use the equivalent of a Speakers' Corner spruiker with a box of self-published tracts? --Pete (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Horizons should clearly not be used. Its website says " Biblical Absolutism, which means that the Bible is absolutely authoritative wherever it speaks and is the sole ultimate authority for our thinking. Along these lines we affirm such things as the importance of six-day creationism and Biblical chronology as God’s way of restructuring our wayward understanding of science and history, Biblical symbolism as God’s way of teaching us how to interpret the world,". Even though our article on its director James B. Jordan calls it a " think tank in Niceville, Florida that publishes books, essays and other media dealing with Bible commentary, Biblical theology, and liturgy". That article needs work. I don't think the others are appropriate either. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Floyd Nolen Jones's PhD appears to be in theology (as that's all he seems to get away with throwing "PhD" after his name on), not archaeology, history, or even anthropology. He does not appear to be any authority whatsoever on what mainstream historians think.

Van Tuyl's work is self-published and not about him, and there is no possibility for a policy-based argument for including his claims.

The Biblical Horizons page could potentially be a halfway reliable source only for citing the Oswald Thompson Allis quote, but it is in no way reliable for historical information, and Allis is not reliable for historical information (hell, his "Five Books of Moses" is written as a rebuttal of history so widely accepted that even the Vatican doesn't argue against it).

None of those sources are reliable for that article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)None of the three sources appear to pass basic RS criteria. The Van Tuyl book is published by Author House, a UK-based vanity publisher. This means it is unusuable per WP:SPS. The Floyd Jones book is published by Floyd Jones Ministries, so ditto. Biblical Ministries is also not usable, per Dougweller. Formerip (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

While reliable sources do not necessarily need to be written by experts, there is nothing about these sources that meets criteria for reliability. Also, while the books may be rs for the opinions of the authors, no evidence has been presented that they are significant views. TFD (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I will discount the somewhat biased phrasing of the question (the fact that the authors may be creationists is irrelevant... a person's views on the origins of the universe has nothing to do with his/her potential expertise on post-exodus kingdoms of Israel and Judea). That said, I have to agree with what others have said ... I don't think any of these sources are reliable in the contexts in which they are used. They may be reliable in some other context... but not the ones described. They seem to be fringe pseudo-historical views that do not merit a lot of weight. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. These sources may be used to describe the opinion of these authors (if these authors are notable on their own merits), but not as sources in other contexts. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with that. The question might be posed in a biased fashion, but depending on the context creationistic beliefs do matter. While at first glance you might argue indeed, that a person's notion on the creation of the universe has nothing to do or no impact on his expertise on the historic kingdoms of Israel and Judea. However depending on the exact branch of creationism (for instant those who take the bible content as factual statements) it may very well influence the quality and reliability of their historic scholarship (and hence their usability for WP). If somebody considers the bible as the literal word of god and statement of fact it actually outright disqualifies him as a historic scholars and hence as a source for WP other than sourcing a common creationist belief.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please Check This WNCN Link For Me

Greetings! I wish to use this link http://www.wncn.com/video?clipId=10181442&autostart=true as a reference for my draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GCFLearnFree.org. I have been advised that it is borderline, and to come here to ask for the opinion of experienced editors. I appreciate input and discussion about it's reliability for the article. Thanks in advance. LauraMcAliley (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

metamodernism.com

There's a bit (actually, more than a bit) of an issue going on at Talk:Metamodernism that I hope can get resolved here. metamodernism.com is the personal WordPress blog of two men named Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker who, since roughly 2010, have taken up to promoting an ideology they mostly invented labeled "metamodernism". The actually definition of "metamodernism" is so vague (I've had a bit of a concern that uninvolved editors are avoiding commenting because they may not fully grasp what the actual definition, if any, of this concept is) that it is extremely futile to even try to briefly summarize it, though to anyone actually interested in trying to decipher some of jargon on the site, I would recommend you check out our Metamodernism entry, which uses mm.com as a primary source for about 70% of the page's information. This is where the concern on the talk page has stemmed from. There are a handful of instances of "metamodernism" being mentioned in established publications, but the information provided in those probably isn't enough to warrant an article, thus a squad of mostly SPAs has been working on writing the article based around the posts on mm.com. I'm taking this here because the stance of the article as stagnated as no consensus can be reached on the article's talk page, and none will be until it is decided upon if this is a reliable source or not. The argument in favor of mm.com being a reliable source is that Vermeulen and den Akker have had some of their works (though, not those on the site) professionally published, though I personally argued against this saying that, despite any personal notability of the owners, a blog is in no way a means to publish quasi-academic material if the writers wish for it to be regarded as such. felt_friend 15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this "metamodernism" actually notable? I know gooogle can find several sources which talk about "metamodernism" but are there enough sources (which are independent and reliable) that talk about this particular meaning of the word? Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

From the extensive research I've done (started out just personal then did more for the sake of the article), there is no actual established definition. The term originated from a 1975 paper which was dragged out again sometime around 2002 or so, and finally ended up in the hands of Vermeulen and den Akker, who used it to define their own vaguely coherent writings. This was another issue that arose in the article: the few publications (including mm.com) that attempt to provide a definition all, in one way or another, conflict with each other. Additionally, no established reliable sources provide any kind of solid definition. I personally feel the topic to be non-notable and I've explained my thoughts on that much further on the talk page (don't feel like getting into it again here since that would take up much more unneeded space in this thread and it's not particularly relevant to whether or not mm.com can be considered a reliable source). The reason I brought this up here, to reiterate, is to finally conclude whether or not mm.com can be used as a source, which would largely help determine the future of the article. felt_friend 19:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable?

There has been a discussion at Talk:Gill clan#Improve referencing about whether ethnographers who operated in India during British rule are reliable. The particular source in question is a book that analyses a census, by Punjab province's Superintendent of Ethnography, Horace Arthur Rose, and it was used to verify the existence of a Punjabi clan, their history, their religious customs and the regions that they inhabit. An editor suggested that his work is unreliable, along with that of other ethnographers from British India. Is there already any consensus to this effect? --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I typically find Sitush serving as a fair but stern limit on excesses in Indian subject, but in this case the Gill clan article is not making an extraordinary claim, having taken some straightforward facts from the Rose book. Rose is cited in modern caste and tribe books along with the subsequent reprint by Sir Denzil Ibbetson. The failings of Ibbetson and Rose are in their belief that the informal pre-Raj caste system could be codified and cemented into place as an administrative structure, which is what was done. These failings do not take away from the research into Indian tribes and their histories. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between mentioning Rose and citing him as a reliable source. I'll try to deal with this over the weekend, if people can wait that long. As I said on the linked talk page, there is a widespread consensus that we avoid these Raj "ethnographers", who were actually gentleman-scholars documenting things as a sideline to their main functions as civil servants of the British Raj. People who go around using colour- and nose-charts to assess the ethnicity of people do not deserve too much attention and, indeed, do not get it except in a historiographical context. Alas, historiography and fact tend to meld into one when it comes to caste-related articles. FWIW, Ibbetson, on whom Rose and McLagan based their work, admitted that his findings were inadequate. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're likely to get my response in semi-coherent dribs and drabs, sorry - much to do.

• For starters, these Raj ethnographers had no formal academic training and were generally unable to speak or read local languages. They relied for much of their research on one or two Brahmin or other upper-caste people, who acted as a conduit and who were prone to editorialising.
• The ethnographers were working with a fixed, narrow agenda: to document in order to control the population and prevent a recurrence of the 1857 Indian Rebellion/Sepoy Mutiny/First Indian War of Independence. Their works have to be considered in the context of the census enumerations. H. H. Risley is probably the best-developed article on the subject (disclaimer: I'm the major contributor to that).
• Aside from generally subscribing to theories of scientific racism, these people also subscribed to the Out of India theory and other generally discredited pseudo-academic devices.
• They rarely questioned: if a respondent claimed to be of X caste or clan then they accepted it at face value. They ignored the very significant issue of aspirational groups seeking to manipulate their "studies" for personal gain and were frustrated to find in their census enumerations that social groups mysteriously came and went within a decade. Some modern academics would say, these people effectively created the environment for development of sanskritisation. Thus, in the Raj period there were around 1,200 identified castes but nowadays there are over 4,000. - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Using books written a hundred years ago as sources is almost never a good idea in Misplaced Pages articles. However, modern scholars often use antique texts as primary sources, which is quite acceptable, and these modern works can then be used as secondary sources. So for example, modern scholars on Rome may base their conclusions partly on the accounts of Tacitus, Caesar, Suetonius, and other ancient writers, but we should not use those accounts as sources for articles about ancient Rome. TFD (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can only comment based on previous discussions I've followed on this subject, and the consensus (as far as I can remember it - sorry I don't have any links) has been that they are unreliable sources, pretty much for the reasons Sitush explains. These were professional soldiers/politicians/civil servants first and amateur ethnographers second. Their purpose was political and not scientific, they swallowed a lot of now-discredited racial theories, they were very selective in who they listened to (and those talking to them were likely biased towards sucking up to the Raj authorities), and they had a habit of largely unquestioningly accepting what these not-disinterested reporters told them. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

We should rarely be using any history sources from before 1945 because racist and ethnocentric assumptions are rife within them. This applies across most countries - certainly applies in Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

World Wide Words or Pratchett newsgroups FAQ

• Source: Quinion, Michael B. (2 January 1996). "My fellow Merkins". World Wide Words. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
• Alternative Source: Pratchett newsgroups FAQ The section titled 'What is a "Merkin"?' about 4/5ths the way down. (excerpt here)
• Article: Merkin#Other usage of the term
• Content: In "Other uses" section: Internet slang for inhabitant of the United States of America.

This content has been removed by Niteshift36 (diff) stating the World Wide Words source was not RS and that the content was trivia. The assertion of trivia is a POV issue I think, but I want to clear up the RS issue first. Is the FAQ ref better? Should I cite both? Are neither good enough? Thank you for your input. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Some more sources are mentioned in Talk:Merkin#Some evidence on Merkin and American including the OED. I do not see the sense in use the OED as a ref to support content about internet slang, when we are on the internet and can just look at closer sources. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think the entry is trivia, as are several things in that section, and should be removed. To the issue here, I think the author is an expert in the field, but that doesn't make everything he writes a reliable source. In this case, it's more of a blog (first person, using anecdotes and a little OR) than the academic work he's engaged it. Blogs or social media don't automatically become reliable solely because a notable person wrote them. I'm not going to fight this hard because I could see the case for allowing the source. I also think that Richard should have actually tried having this discussion at the article talk page instead of running straight to a noticeboard. And that is where we should have the discussion about whether this trivia should be included at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If the OED thinks it worth mentioning the slang usage (referring to Americans), I don't think that usage is too trivial to mention in Misplaced Pages. However, the slang usage is definitely not the primary meaning of the word... so I would not give it all that much weight in the article. The slang usage merits no more than one or two quick sentences tacked on at the end of the article. No need to cite lots of sources for that... the OED is enough. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• The NY Times mentioned that Taylor Swift cancelled 4 shows because of illness. . We don't put that in the article either. Just because it's mentioned somewhere notable does mean we should include it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked the OED 2nd edition today and I did not see any such definition. I am hesitant to use OED without somebody confirming that the current edition has a definition for this use of the word. Can someone check more recent editions, please. Niteshift36, I am uninterested in discussing this. I am a busy man, who likes to help out. I do not have time for what is and is not trivia discussions. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Gee Richard, I'm sorry you're too busy to discuss it, but that IS what we do here at Misplaced Pages. If you don't have time to properly discuss what does or does not belong in an article, then maybe this isn't the ideal use for your very limited free time. Inclusion is the true issue here. There could be a consensus on the reliability of this source, but it doesn't make including it a done deal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

SPS being used at Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon‎

We have an account also editing as an IP at Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon adding material from a personal website as follows: Work by Dr Robert A. Pate, PhD using correlation of native records of the Mayan chroniclers with the Book of Mormon narrative has provided additional insight (i.e. Annals of the Caqchikels & other sources). Every major Book of Mormon site has been identified. Over 80 percent of the total number of sites (Nephite & Jaredite) have been localized. The GPS coordinates are published: ,

• Mormon Footprint in Mesoamerica, 2012, Robert A. Pate, PhD, MormonTopics.com For GPS coordinates, see sections: ALPHABETIC LISTING, Place Names and Geographical Descriptions. pp. 129-150.
• The process began with: Mapping the Book of Mormon: A Comprehensive Geography of Nephite America, 2002 by Robert A. Pate, PhD , Subsequently, as additional discoveries were made other volumes have followed: Mormon Names in Maya Stone, 2009, which documents the names of a number of prominent Book of Mormon personalities as captured in Maya glyphs & codices,, Mormon Key to Maya Code, 2012,wherein the strong Chinese silk connection and other surprising Book of Mormon related discoveries were identified. , and finally, the more precise codification of many of the most prominent discoveries from the first three volumes: Mormon Footprint in Mesoamerica, , a PDF copy of which can be freely downloaded.
• Each book includes addition discoveries, not found in the previous volumes. Please note that other than several small corrections, and refinements, discoveries and clarifications, the process has been a continual process of verification, substantiation, and renewed intensification from the first book through to the fourth.
• Not Everyone agrees. But the issues raised and their relevance, has been addressed: For the critics: Perfect vs. Close-Enough, Solving Mormon's Puzzle, Rebuttal to Brandt A. Gardner and Allen J. Christenson. , FARMS vol 15:2 and FARMS vol 16:2.
• General Rebuttal to Critics, Solving Mormon’s Puzzle, “Perfect vs. Close-Enough”.

I removed this once and posted to User:BofM.MP8 about sources but the material was added again. It's also been added to Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting. There's also the issues of WP:NPOV wording and WP:UNDUE but I thought I'd raise the source issue. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Dr Pate appears to have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering. I see no reason why this would qualify him as a reliable source on Mayan chroniclers, or indeed of anything else beyond his doctoral field. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine and pseudoscience

In the article Acupuncture, is the source:

• "Hard to swallow". Nature (journal). 448 (7150): 105. 2007. doi:10.1038/448106a. PMID 17625521.

a reliable source for the statement:

TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments.

TCM = traditional Chinese medicine. I'm assuming that the standards of Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) are the appropriate requirements in this case. Thanks in advance, --RexxS (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There was previous consensus to use the statement, but to use in-text attribution because the source is an editorial, and the text uses the pejorative "pseudoscience" to describe a traditional, pre-science system of medicine. I don't believe the editorial should be used to establish a contested fact, which would mean we (WP) are establishing that as an uncontested fact. I would prefer to either eliminate the text, or stick with the previous consensus of in-text attribution.Herbxue (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Where's the policy that says we use in-text attribution because a source is an editorial? WP:NOPV is clear:

• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

Where's the discussion that established the consensus you claim?

Why is pseudoscience 'pejorative' when applied to traditional Chinese medicine? TCM is based on concepts such as meridians and flow of qi, which are pure nonsense in scientific terms. That's the very definition of pseudoscience - how does that make it pejorative?

I'm sure you would prefer to eliminate the text, but do you have a policy-based reason for removing a well-supported fact from a reliable source? --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, it says it in the WP:NEWSORG section of WP:RS...

• Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

That said... While the statement is an Editorial, it isn't a NEWSORG editorial (but from what is arguably the single most respected scientific journal in existence). I would definitely consider it one of the rare "reliable for statements of fact" exceptions to the rule. However... to my mind there is no harm in attributing... Nature is so well respected, that attributing actually bolsters the statement that TCM is pseudoscience and gives it more weight than if we simply said it in Misplaced Pages's voice. It makes it clear that this isn't just our opinion... but the opinion of real experts. Blueboar (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Blueboar a Nature editorial must surely be reliable in this context. Whether we should include the word (which has two meanings, one as in the usage of the Nature editorial a pejorative, meaning nonsense, and one specifically meaning that it looks like science but isn't, which doesn't seem to have a RS in this particular case) is of course a matter for discussion elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, while my gut very much agrees with the statement sourced from the Nature editorial, that is a very slim reed on which to hang a claim in Misplaced Pages's voice. For those very committed to having the statement in Misplaced Pages's voice, I recommend finding something more authoritative, like a medical textbook or a statement by a major medical or scientific body. If all you can bring is an editorial, it should be in-line attributed. The prior consensus on in-line citation, mentioned by Herbxue seems to be the correct position. I do not agree with Herbxue that "pseudoscience" is pejorative and strongly urge him to back off that stance, to avoid running afoul of the Arbcom discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's no bad thing to say pseudoscience is pejorative, because something that involves misrepresantation -- like fraud -- probably deserves to be pejorated. FWIW... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I sense an eagerness among editors to label TCM as pseudoscience that is not matched by the Nature source, whose topic is drug discovery and TCM. In context, the quote (below) isn't that strong of an assertion.

To get a sense of the editorial's emphasis, just look at each of its six paragraphs: 1 & 2 = Pharmaceutical interest in TCM. 3 = limited success so far from standard "reductionist" (their word) approaches. 4 = why no success? & quote which we cite (below). 5 = economic & regulatory environment. 6 = non-standard ways of studying TCM formulas; but they're skeptical of this; see 2nd quote below.

Now here's the full quote for our citation (para #4):

"So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."

That's more of a point-counterpoint thing, although it's clear which side they're taking. Still -- as Jytdog says -- not the strongest thing upon which to hang WP's voice.

Later in the editorial they say (para #6):

"Constructive approaches to divining the potential usefulness of traditional therapies are to be welcomed. But it seems problematic to apply a brand new technique, largely untested in the clinic, to test the veracity of traditional Chinese medicine, when the field is so fraught with pseudoscience. In the meantime, claims made on behalf of an uncharted body of knowledge should be treated with the customary scepticism that is the bedrock of both science and medicine."

So again, it's obvious where they stand -- but again, given the content, it's not the central point of the paper.

I'm sure there are other sources that call TCM pseudoscience, but they haven't been proposed as a source for speaking in WP's voice, perhaps because they're not as prestigious as Nature. I sense an overreaching among editors, a grasping at whatever is most likely to justify calling TCM pseudoscience -- but these things take time and the literature has not reached the point homeopathy did some time ago. Likewise, the skeptical blogosphere's eagerness to label TCM pseudoscience is not matched by the same enthusiasm among scientists who study TCM treatments.

The best sources would be those most qualified to comment on demarcation: scholars, including historians and philosophers of science, as well as scientific academies who periodically make such statements to educate the public. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User RealDealBillMcNeal removing tabloids without discussion

Special:Contributions/RealDealBillMcNeal has been removing tabloids. Is this acceptable behaviour or not? Walter Görlitz (talk)

It depends on why he has been removing them. Have you tried contacting him on his talk page and asking why? Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time he has done that. Other editors had taken issue with him and raised it at his talk page before. User had been removing references without consensus that they are not reliable sources and based solely on his personal opinion. At the same time, he has failed to replace them with another 'reliable source' and has left text uncited. LRD NO (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bleacher Report is self-published clickbait, Goal.com started off as a rumour-filled clickbait website in India, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, The Sun, The Star are tabloids who have long-existing reputations for making shite up, because, you know, that's what tabloids do. Not based on personal opinion, but on the opinions of many, many other people for years and years. Jesus wept, you're acting as though I've shat in your cornflakes. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, there is no concensus on them being unreliable sources despite you editing based on claiming that they are opinions of many, many other people for years and years. Newspapers in tabloid format should not be confused with carrying the stigma of being 'tabloid/unreliable'. I would also like to remind you to be WP:CIVIL and avoid further edits until this is resolved. LRD NO (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Here you go mate. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that wikipedia article meant to support your claim that all those references you have removed are not reliable sources? That's not how wikipedia works. If you want to have a blanket removal of those sources based on unreliability, you need to get concensus on them. So far there are none. LRD NO (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Erm, no, I'm telling you what tabloid newspapers are, cause you seemingly don't have a clue. How can you even take part in a debate about reliable sources if you don't know basic terms for newspapers? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I know what the term is and I don't think it affects my participation in this discussion, thank you very much. As a basic point of WP:RS, you should know that concensus is required for blanket removal of any sources. LRD NO (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RealDealBillMcNeal's talk page is proof of the number of editors and admins he's run afoul of with his unilateral purges. (Me being one of them.) To that end, his obvious behavior issues ought to be discussed at WP:ANI, not here. As far as sources go, I'm under the impression that Bleacher Report and Daily Mail are reliable sources. I'd support an RfC to determine consensus on these sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that we might need to raise this over at WP:ANI instead. LRD NO (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss your use of personal attacks there too pal. "Behaviour issues" give me a fucking break. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we demanded company be polite you'd have been shown the door some time ago, Mr. McNeal. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

...and you are...? What is that adding to the debate? You're dead funny you mate. Do you get paid for that wit? No. I'm so surprised. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have done this in all fairness and various editors had raised this with you previously. Those edits have been showed to be of a rather personal nature as evidence by this edit too. WP:ANI might be a more appropriate place considering the recurrent nature of this issue. LRD NO (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Pure waffle that LRD. It's funny how you don't point to the hundreds upon hundreds of useful edits I've made, and instead focus on the few incorrect ones. It's almost like you have an agenda. Her, how about all you's decide to educate me with your superior intellect in this matter rather than ganging up and abusing me, eh? If you have an issue, at least have the decency to tell me and talk to me rather than threatening me with AFI or whatever on earth it is. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That's because various editors have found issues only with certain edits you did. Nobody is being subjective here. They have raised their concerns and you have failed to answer them and continue on your one-sided edits though. Don't get personal and focus on the issue at hand. LRD NO (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you do not continue with further edits until an outcome has been achieved here. LRD NO (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit concerning - is the editor even trying to find sources for the sources removed? We are going to need much more of an effort then just blanking the refs. -- 02:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dunno mate maybe you try asking me? Maybe I could get more than 15 seconds to do so before my edits are reverted and then I don't know where I'm at? Maybe I'll just leave the shite sources there. The Sun. Ha. Good work guys. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen you replace those sources with an alternative source. LRD NO (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I can't be arsed with this, it's really boring. This debate is over. You guys win. The Sun and The Star are amazing sources and can stay forever! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Mate, that's a pretty childish response. It's a serious matter, and you could take it seriously. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

A bit of a road bump with removing the bad sources....I agree with ealDealBillMcNeal the sources are not all that good. But I think the main concern here is that the source (bad or not) is not being replaced with anything. Thus leaving a statement that is unsource. Very easy to fix.... just need a bit more effort in replacing the sources - if non can be found then the content should also be removed. -- Moxy (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize RealDealBillMcNeal was still doing these removals. Sort of a I Don't Like It so it must go approach. As was explained to him back in May by multiple editors, they are not great sources... sort of crosses between blog and magazine, but they are generally regarded as minimally reliable. Some of the reporter/editors are paid on those staffs, and isn't Bleacher Report owned by Sports Illustrated now? Anyway there will always be some disagreement as to their source value, but he simply can't remove the sources without adding new sources. Most editors I've run across seem to think they make the cut as far a wiki-worthiness but if at all possible replace them or augment them with other sources. Is it possible to add {{fact}} to sentences with less than perfect sources? One thing, we can't have him continue to remove and leave the unsourced sentence. That was explained clearly to him. Can we get a simple promise from him that he will remove no more of these sources? Then he can do all his "useful" editing and everyone can go back to their normal patterns of editing without the need of the ugliness ANI's seem to bring out in everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If he can commit to such a promise, sure it would be great for everyone involved. History has shown that he tends to skirt the issue and shows an inability to partake in sensible discussion, staying away then continuing with those edits some time down the line though. LRD NO (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To second some of the above comments, if removing an unreliable source, please replace it with a reliable source or a {{Citation needed}} tag. I also noted the above editor removing a reference to a Spanish language television show (link) from the Cristiano Ronaldo article. I'm not sure how a Canal+ documentary is an unreliable source? --Muchness (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Tabloids are rs. However, they are not the best sources and news covered only in the tabloid press generally lacks weight for inclusion. So the sources should be left in place or replaced with better sources. TFD (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that first sentence is much to strong a statement. Some tabloids can be used for some uncontroversial facts (say, the day of the week, or the year of publication). But when considering the the biological state of starlets, the sightings of Nessie in an UFO, and the latest wondercraze diet and herbal cancer treatment, we get far beyond reliable very fast. These papers must be used, if at all, with extreme caution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

For matters of ascertainable fact, the tabloid format does not indicate unusability of recognized newspapers. For matters of "gossip" even the New York Times is fully fallible. Alas, some view papers with the "wrong political views" as being somehow less "reliable" on that basis alone - which is not a criterion recognized by Misplaced Pages policy. The iterated claims that such papers cannot be used on Misplaced Pages are not in accord with the policies in place. Perhaps someone will suggest "only sources which are always right may be used" but that would winnow down the pool of sources to nil. Collect (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clear up potential confusion: I'm talking about Tabloid journalism, not Tabloid (newspaper format). The first is a style of journalism that typically values sensationalism over fact checking. The second is the physical size of the paper, which indeed has no bearing on reliability. Historically, tabloid journalism, which by definition is of questionable value as a reliable source, and tabloid paper size went hand in hand, but nowadays, many reliable papers (examples given in our article are The Independent and The Times) are printed in tabloid size, but don't feature tabloid journalism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Precisely, tabloids are WP:QUESTIONABLE sources.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We have to judge the reliability of news outlets on a story by story basis ... because the same paper can contain trashy tabloid journalism and reliable news coverage. Take, for example, the New York Post (one of the tabloid format papers that gave "Tabloid Journalism" its name) ... the Post contains a lot of tabloid journalism (sensationalized hyped up reporting, etc)... yet it has also has won multiple Pulitzer prizes for its journalism. It would be wrong to completely discount the Post as a reliable source.

Ok... I have no problem with saying that a paper like the National Enquirer is usually unreliable... but even that tabloid sometimes contains serious journalism (it was seriously considered for a Pulitzer for its reports on the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter story). When it comes to news outlets, we simply can not say "always reliable/unreliable"... The best we can do is say "usually reliable/unreliable" and look deeper to see if a particular report is one of the exceptions or not. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a real danger here of confusing "reliable" and "right". The National Enquirer may contain tidbits of good journalism, but it does not do so reliably. The NYT contains some errors, but they are rare and usually corrected. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the recent edits and they are good cleanup, removing celebrity tittle-tattle. Bill, please bear in mind that the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, even The Sun may be reliable for sports coverage. On articles related to football (soccer), WikiProject Football would be able to advise. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux, G&M unnamed sources becoming "primary" sources

Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added the following to the article:

Reporting on the story, Tu Thanh Ha of the Globe and Mail , said "Many relatives are loath to come forward, fearing that going public will further alienate their children.".

Source: Ha, Tu Thanh (December 12, 2008). "How a cyberphilosopher convinced followers to cut off family". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved April 28, 2014.

It was altered and tagged with {{primary-source-inline}}. Netoholic (talk · contribs) has argued the following at Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Reporter claims about other families not coming forward:

The problem here is that if families contact a reporter directly and that reporter makes a claim about those conversations but doesn't reveal names, then the reporter has become directly involved and is now a primary source for those claims only.

I think 3rd party reliable sources often withold names in stories and the sources are still valid. But, in such cases, we need to be careful to name our source in the body of the article, since it's reliability rests on them. While I prefer to keep this quote, I'm more concerned with a redefinition of what a "primary" source is. The purpose for the above quote I added was to indicate an issue applied to more than a single family named in the story. There may be a better way to present the info. But, regardless G&M is a legit 3rd party source in my opinion. --Rob (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the section title here is a wrong understanding. My point is that the reporters themselves become primary sources when they relate information about events they participate in, namely that the reporter himself was contacted by unnamed parties. I am not saying its bad journalism, but it is primary source and unreliable because such accusations can't be refuted or even researched independently of the reporter for accuracy. The reporter is no longer 3rd party, because he was himself contacted... and is now involved. Sources can contain both first-party and third-party content, but can only be reliable for the third-party, secondary-sourced material they write about. --Netoholic @ 08:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

An article in a mainstream newspaper, The Globe and Mail, is not a primary source. In fact it is an excellent secondary source for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. If a reporter does his own research, he is no less involved. Both cases are part of the job. It's primary if the unnamed persons publish their claims directly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

From WP:PSTS (section on secondary sources): "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." To apply it to this case, the reporter, in describing that anonymous people contacted him directly, is relating information about his own personal experiences, and so is a primary source for that information. --Netoholic @ 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No. A reporter reporting something about other people is not a "primary source" in that case. That's basic secondary reporting. Reporters report a lot of things that are communicated to them directly by sources (many stories have info from press releases). We rely on the reporter to research or judge the quality of a claim in a news story not marked as opinion. Misplaced Pages has no problem where accusations can't be refuted or even researched independently of the reporter for accuracy. If the newspaper reports it (and it fits other policies), we repeat it and cite what RS said it. WP:V just means that it was verifiably reported by a reliable source, not that access is there for random editors to verify the transcripts of interviews or reporters' notes themselves. This appeared in a news story in a mainstream paper that has a reputation for reliable reporting. The reporter reported something about people other than himself, about experiences and opinions he shows no indication of having himself. Pure secondary. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think its necessary to either use a direct quote the paper, or to name the reporter himself in the article body as used by the OP? I'm wondering because my edit tailored it better into the narrative, where OP's version made it stand out more prominently than I think is called for. --Netoholic @ 19:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the direct quote to the paper. In some ways I find it better than Reporters have said that they have been in contact with other families, but have not come forward publicly to avoid further alienating their children. which is 1) talking about some group of non-specific reporters and 2) unclear grammatically about whether it's the parents or reporters who "have not come forward". There are a number of odd editorial choices in that paragraph. It might have a small problem with loaded words, with the parents "taking complaints" and "claiming" but people who aren't the parents "confirming" and "giving evidence". Maybe just slightly slanted, but it shows that attributing the words directly to the paper might be preferable in some cases.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Its a touchy subject area and I worry about tackling the potentially loaded words you mentioned, since the section has been stable for a pretty long time. Now that it seems like using this sentence is allowable under policy as not being primary-sourced, we can work on how best to incorporate it into the section. A full quote and reporter attribution by name is probably too much, but all-prose might not be good either. We can take the weight and wording aspects back to the talk page now though. --Netoholic @ 22:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I think "Many relatives are loath to come forward, fearing that going public will further alienate their children" in the article is a secondary source, based on the following logic: primary sources are, per WP:PSTS, "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". These would be the communications the reporter received from the relatives (the "people who are directly involved"). The "relatives are loath" sentence is the reporter's analysis of these primary sources, which would make it secondary. The point is a bit academic though, since even if it was primary, it could IMO still be used, material shouldn't be removed simply because it's sources to a primary source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this topic can be closed. Seems like there is consensus that the reporter's interaction with unnamed people is reliable, so we can take the discussion back to the article talk page. Thanks all. --Netoholic @ 22:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Times-Picayune

Is The Times-Picayune a RS on the positions of the Gov. of La?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bobby_Jindal&action=historysubmit&diff=615626794&oldid=615622105

http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2014/06/bobby_jindals_common_core_anno.html "Gov. Bobby Jindal's long-awaited announcement of his plans to scuttle the Common Core academic standards in Louisiana"

The reverted article (as above) would tend to leave readers with the impression that Jindal was still a CC supporter. Hcobb (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact it is probably the best source available for current events in the state. TFD (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with TFD, seems to be a good source for that kind of information. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly a reliable source for the material in question. The reasons for its removal are dubious, to say the least. MastCell  21:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is ill-phrased by the OP -- is the material which is phrased in the sort of campaign argumentation "Jindal said this but now says this" and was not aimed at stating "In 2001 he stated xxx. In 2014 he stated yyy." but at stating "He said xxx and now he says yyy which means he is doing something wrong in some way." Misplaced Pages is not a campaign venue - we stick to facts as best we can. That means if Jindal runs for president in 2016, he'll need a pithy, well-rehearsed answer for why he was for it before he was against it. is the attempted gist of the edit - which is clearly editorial in nature and not a statement of facts per WP:NPOV. If used it must be clearly stated as opinion per WP:BLP. The OP here has not been fully candid, I fear. Collect (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've read your post several times, but can't quite understand the point you're trying to make. The edit in question is here, and involves one sentence which accurately conveys the content of a reliable source. Your post seems to ignore the edit entirely, instead focusing on the nefarious motivations of other editors. You also incorrectly apply WP:BLP; news sources need to be represented as news sources, not as "opinion". I would suggest that either develop a more coherent rationale or cease removing this material, which at present appears to comply with all of our content policies. MastCell  10:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So may I toss in an exact quote form the Jindal?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/23/common-core-louisiana-gov-bobby-jindal-editorials-debates/8071863/

• First, the federal government became increasingly involved.
• To succeed on Common Core tests, states will have to adopt curricula that teach to the tests.
• It has become fashionable in the news media to believe there is a right-wing conspiracy against Common Core.

Okay? Hcobb (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

NRA PAC contributions to Congressional candidtes

Are the sources attached to this text reliable?

In 2012, 88 percent of Republicans and 11 percent of Democrats in Congress had received an NRA PAC contribution at some point in their career. Of the members of the Congress that convened in 2013, 51 percent received funding from the NRA PAC within their political careers, and 47 percent received NRA money in their most recent race.

1. Drutman, Lee (2012-12-18). "NRA's allegiances reach deep into Congress". sunlightfoundation.com. Sunlight Foundation.
2. Joseph, Cameron (2012-12-20). "Half of Congress have received NRA donations". The Hill (blog). Retrieved 2014-06-06.
3. Cizzilla, Chris (2012-12-20). "Where the NRA is spending its money in Congress". Washington Post (blog). Retrieved 2014-06-06.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)