Sources:

• Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse after the Holocaust, edited by Roni Stauber; chapter by Yitzhak Arad

• "The report deals with the role Estonian auxiliarry forces in crimes committed outside of Estonia. ... On 7 August 1942, Estonian police battalion No 36 took part in the round-up and execution of all remaining Jews..." (somewhat loose paraphrasing, exact quote in the link)

• The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945; edited by Geoffrey P. Megargee:

• "On August 7 1942, the Germans and their collaborators (including Estonian Police Battalion 36 ...) took away the remaining inmates (...) and shot them there": link.

• In contrast, Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity states: "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". ("Estonian defence battalions / police battalions". In Toomas Hiio; Meelis Maripuu; Indrek Paavle. Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Tallinn. pp. 825–876)

Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion

Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."

The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting that the West German investigation in the early '60s could not prove participation in the killing as I wouldn't think that they'd have any reason to whitewash the Communist gov't of the time. I think that what we have here is reliable sources on both sides, so I'd suggest laying out the evidence like so: "The battalion has been accused of participating in the killings of Jews at X, on Y, (sources) but a West German investigation in the early 1960s could not conclusively link its members to the action(source)" and let the reader decide. RSN isn't meant to decide which evidence is the "best", and that's all I'm afraid that we could accomplish here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there might be some clarification in the text of the second source, or possibly in any sources these themselves cite. I say this because the sources don't necessarily contradict. The first states the role the police played in the killings cannot be determined, whereas the second states that there is no evidence they participated in the executions. If the two sources are taking very different interpretations of "involvement", they might actually agree. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussion mentions WP:WPNOTRS, and claims that we shouldn't use tertiary sources. However, WP:WPNOTRS doesn't really say that - it says secondary sources are preferred but tertiary sources are reliable also. In practice, we use specialty encyclopedias quite a lot, as they are often written by experts in the field they cover. I'd consider The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos to be a specialty encyclopedia that is probably quite a good source for information on its subject matter. And I'll also note that the three volumes of the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos are quite extensively researched and do actually include sources for most entries. I don't have the first volume available at the moment (even I quail at buying the books - they are pricey!) but I do have the second volume here at hand and a glance through shows every article has a list of sources as well as most having footnotes. I'd suggest getting the book through interlibrary loan and consulting whatever sources are used for the entry snippeted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the work on Collaboration is also post-Cold War and the section by Arad would definitely be considered a reliable source for this subject, as Arad is a researcher in the field of the Holocaust in the Baltics. His work is most definitely NOT a tertiary source, it is in fact a secondary source also. He may be wrong, but its equally likely the commission was wrong also - especially if it based its conclusions on a West German commission from 1971, prior to the opening of many archives after the Cold War. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about the West German commission not having full access to archival data is a good one, but none of these sources can be impeached as they're all post-Cold War and the commission doesn't even have any Estonian nationals as members. I'd need to see the sources myself, to see which way the preponderance of evidence lies if I were writing this article myself. But really, this is disagreement between reliable sources and should be discussed either in the main body of the article or a footnote, not a RS issue at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think we should take sides on either side - it appears to be a disagreement between sources ... all of which appear reliable. The ideal solution is to cover the controversy in the article. Both sides should be presented, and other sources brought to bear. A good start would be getting the Encyclopedia and seeing what sources it used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would first also cite this close study in Estonian, that, based on historical documents and interviews with historians also comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest the police battalion participated in the roundup of the Jews. And let me also point out that this is not a case of poor or missing documentation. The main discrepancy between the sources seems to be generality vs. specificity. The sources that claim the role of the police battalion may be generally reliable and use reliable PS but in this specific case either do not specify their sources or rely on indirect evidence, e.g. "The reports of this squad report many entries on "military action against partisans," a phrase which conceals punitive measures against citizens and the killing of Jews."

The dispute between the sources is not notable enough to warrant a passage in the article so my suggestion is to include it in a footnote. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ekspress source appears to be a general newspaper - at least I see articles on movies and other such topics on the main page of it. Google translate gives a very very rough translation which appears to be either a letter to the editor or an editoriak, which is supported by the translation of "PEKKA ERELT, EESTI EKSPRESSI AJALOOKÜLGEDE TOIMETAJA" which google gives as "PEKKA Erelt, Eesti Ekspress HISTORY sides of EDITOR". I'd suggest that the Ekspress is not exactly a scholarly secondary source here. Certainly, there appears to be a commission that does not think the brigade took part in the events. Unfortunately, an unsigned newspaper article is not a strong source contradicting the United States Holocaust Museum's encyclopedia of the various German labor/extermination camps, nor Arad, who is a scholar working in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pekka Erelt is the editor of the history section of the Eesti Ekspress. His article may not be scholarly but it is investigative journalism. Even if we do not consider his own discussion, we should not dismiss the quotes by professional historians Meelis Maripuu, Argo Kaasik and Enn Kaup in his article. And again, this is a matter of specificity. The core of this problem is trusting a general RS over specific investigation on this matter. And, again, the conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity are not another opinion of 'a commission' but the conclusions of the commission established to investigate crimes by Estonian citizens. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:

• Novogrudok, Belarus received notoriety among Estonians lately. Allegedly, the 36th Police Battalion took part in the mass murder of Jews committed there in August 1942. At least, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is certain of it. The wording in the report by the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity is more modest; the report, however, did not rule out the participation of the Estonians. (Not sure if "more modest" is the correct translation.) link

It seems to be an incident of significance & deserves more than a footnote in the article, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Eesti Ekspress article was written in 2002, while the commission's work was still in progress, so obviously the commission "did not rule out the participation of the Estonians" at that time because it hadn't completed it's review of all the available evidence, including the 1960's West German investigation and post-war Soviet investigations. The commission's final report, published in 2006, concluded there was no evidence found relating to the participation of 36th Battalion. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the Talk page: The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found -- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't you put too much weight on a criminal investigation of West German Police in 1960-70? I could understand your concern if they where investigating their own countrymen, but they spent four years investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. The Commission states on page 862 of their final report: According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.^[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. --Nug (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note re: "investigating a non-German unit composed of nationals from the then Soviet Union" -- presumably, the members of the Battalion retreated with the Germans and were residing either in West Germany or elsewhere in Western Europe; the Battalion's commander, Harald Riipalu, emigrated to the U.K, for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how that is significant, given that the majority of the Battalion where captured by the Soviets. Upon what basis do you dismiss investigations of West German police? As I understand it, there was an issue in the late 1950's to early 1960's in regard to the Police investigating their own members who may have committed crimes during the Nazi period, but I think it is too much to claim that this would have impeded investigations of foreign personnel in the late 60's to early 70's. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions of the Commission

I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:

• "The study of Estonian military units is complicated by frequent changes in unit designation, in personnel and in duties, some of which are poorly recorded. However, it has been possible by careful use of Soviet era trial records, matched against material from the Estonian archives, to determine that Estonian units took an active part in at least one well-documented round-up and mass murder in Belarus. The 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok.

"In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews."

This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.

Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that both The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad are paraphrasing this document you found, so obviously there would not be any contradiction. The basis of this appears to be the view that "fighting against partisans" was code for killing Jewish civilians. But it isn't clear how they arrived at that, as it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which devotes several pages to the activities of the Battalion and asserts there no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion. Are you able to access Gerlach's work and quote the original German here, perhaps that may shed further light, I've given the relevant page numbers above. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This document [I] found comes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said it appears to contradict the main body of the report itself, which explicitly states "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews". Do you have access to Gerlach's work Kalkulierte Morde, pp701-702? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have access to Gerlach. If I sent you an email, would you be able to scan and email the relevant pages from the main body of the report (assuming its in English)? I'd like to see more context around their conclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a pity, with you being able to cite more obscure German historians, like Sönke Neitzel and Wolfgang Schneider, in other articles, you may have also had access to Gerlach. I can scan the relevant pages, but I don't have easy access to a scanner, perhaps I could go to the local library over the weekend. --Nug (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would look forward to it. BTW, Sönke Neitzel is not at all obscure. He is a leading German military historian; his 2011 book Soldaten: German POWs on Fighting, Killing, and Dying (with Harald Welzer) was a sensation in Germany. The book was published in English and is even available as an audio book. It's a fascinating read; I highly recommend it. See also this interview (in English):

• "Mindset of WWII German Soldiers": video interview with Neitzel discussing Soldaten, via the official YouTube channel of The Agenda (TVOntario).

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nug: final ping. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally back, have been caught up in WP:REALLIFE. I've managed to scan the relevant pages and will post a link here in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nug: Hi, do you plan to post here, or should I drop you an email? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Yitzak Arad cites as his source the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory, which is the successor to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. The Commission was disbanded in 2007 and Arad wrote in 2011. You need to check what the Institute says. If they are cited correctly, then we have to prefer what they say over the Commission. I do not have full access to the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia. The article may provide sources which can be checked. It was published in 2009, so it may be relying on the same info as Arad. This seems to be a case where an original conclusion was changed, but we cannot tell without looking at what the Institute says. TFD (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got my scanner working and have the Holocaust Museum Encyclopedia from the library. If anyone wants the scans of the article ... send me an email and I will send pdfs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if editors could find some time to comment on an RFC as to RS suitability at the talk page for the above article, thank you. The queried RS are

https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2017/06/the-forgotten-truth-about-the-balfour-declaration/

& (for comparison)

http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-weizmann-and-the-creation-of-israel-by-charles-glass/

1. Source. Dravis, Michael (17 January 2000). "Andrew and Mitrokhin Part 1". The Intelligence Forum archives.

2. Article. Mitrokhin Archive

3. Content. This paragraph appears in the "Reception and reviews" section of the article:

Reg Whitaker, a professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto, gave a review at the The Intelligence Forum about the book:

"The Mitrokhin Archive arrives from a cache under a Russian dacha floor, courtesy of the British intelligence community itself, and its chosen historian, Chris Andrew. The provenance of this archive is itself a matter of some controversy." After questioning and discussing the source of the book he adds that "the hand of British intelligence is evident, and Andrew clearly has a 'special relationship' with SIS." Then, Reg Whitaker goes on to talk about the British Media when it comes to spies and says that "ever since Burgess and Maclean made their run to Moscow in 1951, the British have treated espionage as a branch of pornography", adding that "it is doubtful that many readers enticed by the advance publicity will actually get very far into this voluminous tome of close to 1000 name and date filled pages. A gripping read it ain't.","is remarkably restrained and reasonable in its handling of Westerners targeted by the KGB as agents or sources. The individuals outed by Mitrokhin appear to be what he says they were, but great care is generally taken to identify those who were unwitting dupes or, in many instances, uncooperative targets."

The Intelligence Forum appears to have been an internet newsgroup or forum: [1]. As an academic, Whitaker appears to be qualified to give a review of the Mitrokhin Archive, however, I thought there was some prohibition on the use of newsgroups or forums. Looking for additional opinions. Thanks! -Location (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

On the Near-death experience page some of my edits were rejected [2] because the source I used:

Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, Debbie James, eds. (2009). The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35865-4 page 218

was deemed non-MEDRS. Now, in the MEDRS policy they clearly state that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The above Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [3] I believe, since it is both academic and educational. Also, the authors are some of the best known names in the field of near death experiences: Bruce Greyson, for instance, is either author or co-author on more than 27 publications mostly related to Near Death Experiences (NDEs) in Pubmed. Since I did not get an answer from the talk page [[Talk:Near-death_experience#The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation|The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences

The text I wish to support with this source is the following :

It has also been hypothesized that a "ketamine-like protective agent" was released during NDEs since the aesthetic agent has been reported to produce some features of NDEs such as "travelling through a dark tunnel into light, believing that one has died, or communicating with God". (ref HandBook) However, unlike NDEs, most ketamine experiences are frightening. Patients report their hallucinatory nature unlike subjects experiencing NDEs who are convinced of their authenticity. Also, some important features of NDEs are missing such as experiencing a life review or seeing deceased people. (ref Handbook)

The main difference between NDEs and neurochemicals is the duration of the effect. Endorphins' injections lead to hours long pain relief whereas NDEs’ effects are determined by the duration of the experience itself (few seconds for instance). Another difference is that endorphins do not produce transformative afteraffects, do not lead to out of body experiences, a life review etc.. which are all components of NDEs.(ref Handbook)

Best - Josezetabal (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe nonsense from a non-WP:MEDRS source. This source is not usable for anything other than citing its own views, and then the problem would be WP:WEIGHT and probably WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josezetabal: Bruce Greyson's associations would definitely put him outside the academic mainstream: the Division of Perceptual Studies, for instance, describes its mission as the "investigation of phenomena that challenge current physicalist brain/mind orthodoxy – including investigation of phenomena directly suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness. " This has an air of credibility, but they're own self-description implies that most researchers do not agree with their approach, so I wouldn't use it as a WP:MEDRS

Even if this was mainstream material, I would be dubious about bare assertions such as "most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? It seems mildly implausible given that people use ketamine recreationally. That's the sort of broad generalization you might make if you had access to really high quality meta-analyses, but these are essentially conference papers. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? A drug that reliably (as in "most" cases) produced a fear response would be a very poor choice for use in anesthesia. In fact, a fear response is the exact opposite of a useful effect in anesthesia. I would say this is more than "mildly" implausible, and more along the lines of "bullshit thrown out with the hopes no-one will notice because it helps support an even less plausible line of bullshit being sold". Indeed, it contradicts much published material, which concludes that the psychological effects of ketamine use are highly subjective, except for a notable anti-depressant effect and the presence of hallucinations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is published by Praeger, which is an academic publisher. The editors include two professors, one of whom is a psychiatrist with other 100 articles published in peer-reviewed journals.[4] The book shows 91 cites on Google scholar.[5] That meets reliability. MEDRS incidentally is irrelevant. It's reason for being is "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information." While we don't want any articles to mislead readers, extra care must be taken to ensure that we do not provide false medical information that some readers my rely on to their detriment. I do not see how that applies here.

You need to be careful however in using sources and clearly distinguish between primary and secondary sources, facts and opinions, and majority vs. minority opinions. The contributors to the book represent a minority view on NDE and have not conducted sufficient research to form conclusive findings.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the last point, but how would this not fall under biomedical information? The content in question making assertions about side-effects of a widely used anesthetic, the pain relieving effects of endorphins, and the characteristics of a condition that most scientists attribute to neurological changes in the brain. Elsewhere, Greyson is cited for claims about potential psychological aftereffects for people who have NDEs. This is all biomedical stuff, and it doesn't take a ton of imagination to think of ways it might factor in to a person's views about medical treatment.

Greyson is an expert in something, I'm just not sure that he's an expert in the topics he's discussing in the cited sections. It seems like he might be useful for information about the subjective experiences of people who have near death experiences, but he probably shouldn't be cited as an expert on the causes of NDEs - that's more of a neuroscience question. Nblund ^talk 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Biomedical information" is "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." We do in fact provide "biomedical information" in many articles outside MEDRS guidelines. We talk about how many people died from a disease, how many were killed during a war. In crime articles, we recount injuries and the effects of drugs and alcohol without using medical sources. The source is inter-disciplinarian, since the study of NDE is necessarily so, which means it is fact-checked by people from various disciplines, including medicine and psychology. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you TDF, Nblund, MjolnirPants for taking the time to jump in and for all your comments. I do agree with what some of you said about Ketamine. I have also researched the literature and was not able to find anything on ketamine's frightening effects. So we can consider discussion closed. Best Josezetabal (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is this considered a reliable source? I'm dealing with a lot of blps where it is the only given source. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagecandor, thanks for responding. I can't really see, my computer won't translate it (from Arabic, I think). Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Source: Inside the Magic more specifically Video: Behind the walls at Mako Seaworld Orlando's new hyper-coaster! by Adam McCabe
2. Article: Mako (roller coaster)
3. Content: Mako (roller coaster)#Ride experience

• "The queue line of the ride consists of a wooden pier, which riders upon waiting are situated under.[24] During the queue, guests of the ride take on the point of view of a mako shark as it traverses through preying grounds.[25] Furthermore, as guests go through the queue, various educational displays and a Guy Harvey exhibit can be seen.[25] Mako's station is themed to a shipwreck as with being underwater.[26] Before dispatching, a panel located above the ride shows scenes of shadow figures and a grouping of fish with accommodating visuals and sound.[24]"
• Although sourced, I was wondering if "Inside the Magic" is a reliable source. The more specific source is the parts I wish to include and expand in the article about the detailing of the queue line and station of the attraction through a guided tour for the media. It seems to have a fairly large following and seems to have some notable figures in the 'amusement' industry as part of its team, but I wanted to make sure if it was reliable. (Currently Inside the Magic is not sourced in the article) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like they do according to their websites "About" page, which lists staff, history, following, and contact. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if all articles get a review by the editor(s) before posting? Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From looking around it seems that it is probable, but I can't say for absolute sure. They're most likely checked by the owner/editor-in-chief, but I don't have any information to back that every article is reviewed. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster has been brought up twice here previously by Autarch: 6 August 2016 and 23 July 2017. Although citizenwells.net appears only to have been discussed on this noticeboard those two times, wnd.com has been the subject of multiple discussions pertaining to various articles. On the article's talk page, Froglich has challenged the consensus reached in the earlier discussions by stating that he was not notified of them. -Location (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not close to reliable, as has been stated previously. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a chance. Fun fact: WND.com was the originator of that insane "Chobani imports Muslims" claim that got Alex Jones sued. In other words, they published a story so crazy that even Infowars retracted it. "CitizenWells" appears to just be someone's WP:BLOG. This is about as clear-cut as it gets: neither of these sources are reliable for claims of fact, particularly when it comes to this kind of right-leaning clickbait. Nblund ^talk 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) And Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were sacked from CBS News for lying. -- If publishing stories so "crazy" that key personnel end up being fired represents an even greater "match" per Nblund's analogy, then the following must be considered at least equally unreliable per Nblund:

ABC (Alexis Debat resigned before being fired for lying)

CNN canned three liars in its employee just last week, as well as Eason Jordan and Peter Arnett back in the hazy mists. Lied throughout the Operation Tailwind debacle. For some reason, the liar Jonathan Karl still has a job.

CBS (see above; also had to fire Lara Logan)

Associated Press (fired Bob Lewis, Dena Potter, and Christopher Newton for lying)

BBC (liars Andrew Gilligan and David Kelly resigned and committed suicide respectively)

Boston Globe (fired Patricia Smith, suspended Ron Borges)

Los Angeles Times (dumped Eric Slater and Brian Walski)

MSNBC (fired Keith Olbermann for lying, but still hasn't fired Ed Schultz and Mike Barnicle for lying)

New York Times (fired Michael Finkel and Jayson Blair, but didn't fire Rick Bragg, Alexis Debat, Herbert L. Matthews, or Fox Butterfield for lying, and is still tenaciously hanging onto its tarnished Duranty Pulitzer)

New Yorker (Jonah Lehrer resigned before being fired for lying)

National Review (let Stephen Glass get away with lying for three straight years)

New Republic (fired Ruth Shalit for lying)

Newsweek (Michael Isikoff, source of the infamous "flushed Koran" lie)

NBC (fired Brian Williams and Peter Arnett; see also Dateline exploding trucks debacle)

NPR (promoted the "Jenin massacre" lie along with most of the rest of the establishment press; still employs liar and plagiarist Nina Totenberg)

Reuters (Adnan Hajj's absurdly fake Photoshopped news pics)

Sacramento Bee (fired Dennis Love for lying)

Salon (Jason Leopold)

Slate (Jay Forman)

USA Today (dumped Jack Kelly)

Washington Post (Janet Cooke lied her way to Pulitzer Prize)

- But obviously we're not going to stop using these as RS, are we? Hence the provided rationale is one selectively and hypocritically applied.

2) NBlund claims WND "was the originator" of the Chobani story. NBlund's provided link contains an internal link to an earlier WND article which itself linked an Idaho newspaper. Assuming NBlund's "originator" claim is a relay from Snopes, then Snopes either lied or is in error itself, and he must therefore account his own analogy centerpiece as unreliable per his own argument. And, oh dear, this looks embarrassing. --Froglich (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this does anything to demonstrate that WorldNetDaily is a well-established news outlet, nor does it rebut the fact that WND has, to quote WP:NOTRELIABLE, a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight ... (and is known for) expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Every entity on the list above has "a poor reputation for checking the facts". Yeah, I know: WP:OTHERSTUFF. But, that's almost 'all of the other stuff on that list. Ergo, what's going on here is typical, hypocritical partisanship in which some entities are held to standards that others routinely flout.

(2) That Miguel Rodriguez (a) exists, (b) was Kenneth Starr's lead prosecutor, and (c) wrote a resignation letter detailing his reasons for doing so, and (d) the text of that letter is available, are four points that no editor I am aware so far has considered a "contentious claim" (i.e., they flat-out don't believe it, and are brave enough to say it out loud).--Froglich (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NFW these are reliable. Especially for this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the examples provided by Froglich as lying are in fact not lies but errors, making this list a BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No source is infallible, but reliable sources retract stories (and even fire people) when they get it wrong. Issuing corrections is actually part of the criteria for judging a reliable source because it demonstrates editorial oversight and a concern for fact-checking. WND doesn't do this: it never retracted any of it's Chobani reporting, or its claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Rodriguez is probably real, but I don't actually see him being described as the "lead prosecutor". The problem isn't just that this particular claim might be false, it's that WND frequently omits important facts, casts stories in a misleading light, and credulously accepts reports gossip and claims from sources that have very low credibility. Since - as WND admits - reliable sources didn't run with his story, there's a good chance that key context is missing, and it's nearly impossible to gauge due weight for the claim. Nblund ^talk 16:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on "no". Hard to think of any subject these would be reliable for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never reliable. Neutrality^talk 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Even assuming that list Froglich gave was accurate, I don't think it was well thought through. If CBS News will fire one of it's reporters for lying, then that strongly suggests that CBS Nes is reliable, because they fire employees who gets caught lying FFS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1)"Lying Dan" was a fixture of CBS for over forty years before they canned him. -- It's not like Mary was going to fire him.--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2) We appear to be in agreement (I note no objections, and no response from Nblund) that the example of alleged WND perfidy provided in this ANI was erroneously-presented. I.e., it wasn't the "originator" of Nblund's Chobani story (Nblund foray's into Alex Jones, who isn't the subject of discussion, smearing by association). WND merely relayed an Idaho newspaper piece, which is something every media organization does on a daily basis. Certainly the story was presented with "spin" (also something every media organization does on a daily basis). WND's source is considered RS by Wikipedia, as is equally-and-more-so biased Snopes by many here. (It should also be noted that WND wasn't sued, whereas Alex Jones was, per NBlund's account.)--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you strike "lying Dan" as this is another BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Idaho newspaper story doesn't mention Chobani, Ulukaya, or Muslims - so no, this isn't the source for the claims about Chobani. But this is really a moot point: you're the lone dissenter out of roughly a dozen participants across three separate noticeboard discussions regarding this content. I understand that you think the mainstream press is equally unreliable, it's clear that you're not going to persuade many editors to agree with you. Probably time to move on to other issues. Nblund ^talk 23:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Froglich has the facts wrong on Keith Olbermann too. I wonder how many other BLP-violating false accusations are on that list? Morty C-137 (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've spent the last 20 minutes researching Dan Rather's departure from CBS, because there was something itchy about Froglich's claim, and the best explanation I've found so far is that CBS decided not to renew his contract (itself a distant leap from "firing" him) because he was in negotiations to do a show with HDNet. I'm sure the relatively minor (we don't even cover it in our article about him) controversy about the Bush National Guard story played a role, but still. This claim of Froglich's that Dan Rather was fired for lying (and the implication that he was fired for 40 years of lying) is, at best, a truly bizarre distortion of the truth. And it's all in service to the argument that World Net Daily is a reliable source, a claim which is a complete non-starter in and of itself. At least now I know that Froglich is utterly untrustworthy when it comes to claims about politics.

Also, Froglich; we are not in agreement that any claims about WND unreliability were "erroneously-presented". I have no idea why you would say such a thing, as I never implied anything that might, itself be taken as an implication that I might, possibly agree with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable. This is not a forum for airing out grievances about the lamestream media. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No evidence of reliability This discussion seems to have taken a wayward turn. It's not the case that any website is a RS unless proven otherwise. Rather, the source needs to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCE). I see no evidence presented for such a reputation. Do they have any "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments"? What mainstream news organization have relied on their reports? What journalistic awards have they won? None that I can see at the moment. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable - discussion of other publications is irrelevant here. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reality Check Reliability always relies on context. There's not enough information in the OP to even give an opinion. Even Alex Jones can be a reliable source for what Jones claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... any source is reliable for a quote from (or close paraphrase of) that source (in fact, a source will be the most reliable source possible for itself). However... we often get so wrapped up in debates about the reliability of the source that we forget that there are other policies and guidelines that might apply. For example, we also have to consider the WP:Due weight clause of NPOV. Would even mentioning what Alex Jones (for example) says give UNDUE weight to a fringe view? In most cases the answer will be "yes, it would". In which case we should not mention what Jones says.

In other words... It may be that everyone is focused on the wrong policy. It may not matter whether the source is reliable for the statement... because the underlying issue is whether the article should contain the statement in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't really know much about the topic, given the subject, World Net Daily might very well be reliable as a primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment - Having looked into the specifics, it looks like AQFK and I are correct ... This is indeed a situation where a document is being cited as a PRIMARY source for a statement relating to the content of that document (specifically, a letter written by Rodriquez is being cited as a PRIMARY source for statements about what Rodriquez says in that letter).

NOW... part of the problem is that the citations are malformed. WND and Citizen News are not actually what should be cited here (they are merely hosting venues - ie they contain scanned copies of the letter). The actual source is the letter itself. AND... for a statement as to the content of the letter, a copy of the letter itself is reliable as a primary source.

HOWEVER... that leaves unanswered the question of whether mentioning the letter in the first place is UNDUE (my answer to that is... probably). Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the claim is simply "Rodriguez resigned because he disagreed with Starr", then it's primary, but meaningless without context regarding Rodriguez or his role in the case. WND is almost certainly exaggerating his role by calling him the "lead prosecutor" or "lead investigator" - the lead prosecutor would have been Ken Starr. Nblund ^talk 15:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As reliable as all the other bait-click MSM sources on the internet today...and I'm including the rampant misinformation we've been inundated with by publishers who are using anonymous sources for 75% of their articles; most recent example, The New York Times with its off-the-wall crap such as this. Editors have to exercise a bit more caution than before when it comes to verifying any publication that's considered a "news source". Bait-click headlines and fallacious content are rampant, and none of them are immune. They face no consequences under the law with the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act and absence of FCC permitting, neither of which have helped ethical journalism issues. The internet has become the "Wild, Wild West of Journalism". The news we're getting now is mostly propaganda, and written to satisfy the voracious appetites of high-up execs, and their respective political views. To think "editorial review" changes anything is laughable in light of the retractions - retractions don't make a publication trustworthy rather it proves they are not dependable - they all make mistakes. Notice if you will that retractions only come when the publication is challenged. Lots of people have an insatiable appetite for conspiracy theories and sensationalism - news is now entertainment - it's far more profitable - and that's exactly how it's being handled in numerous MSM published sources, regardless of political leanings. Use inline text attribution, follow the RS guideline for material that may be challenged, avoid policy noncompliance and apply BRD to rid an article of biased garbage and fallacious claims. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, stopped reading when you claimed that WND is as reliable as the NYT. Objective3000 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I dismissed your comment when I realized the inadvertent irony in your sig. New York Times controversies<---which barely scratches the surface. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got to be kidding - Looking at comments from Froglich/Atsme/etc, what the heck is going on here? Did Something Awful decide to attack? Is this a Chan Raid organized by /r/The_Donald or something??? Morty C-137 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing about the opposing comments but at least I have facts supporting my position, and of course, first and foremost: WP:PAG, including NPOV, RS, and WP:NEWSORG. I've not seen one argument against the source that warrants condemning it. Alexa ranks it 6,044 globally, and 1,567 in the US, not exceptional but not a bad place to be. I also noticed it has lost a bit of its ranking, not unlike most in the MSM as more readers lose faith in what's being reported. Oh, and then there's the real fake news articles, like this one WaPo published [6].

Your primary argument seems to be extremist right-wing "I HATE MSM" screaming. You link to a blog on "Forbes Sites" - aka an unvetted blog - it even carries a disclaimer Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Oh and if we're comparing Alexa rankings, The Onion has a rank of 3876 (or #895 in the USA), but at least they admit they're not real news. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your primary argument seems to comprise left-wing mantra...and??? Let me be clear - this Harvard report is a RS of the highest quality so my suggestion to you is to rethink your PAs and learn how the WP community works before you go shouting down veteran editors. What you're doing is considered disruptive behavior. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the classic Shorenstein study the anti-MSM crowd loves: "the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever." Please see WP:BIASED. Bias is not proof of unreliability. NYT, WashPo and other outlets you hate are miles more accurate and reputable than WND, Infowars and other clickbait fringe websites. Your tirade against the MSM in a discussion about WND is better taken elsewhere. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Reliable. Reliability of MSM aside, there is no way this could be considered reliable. You could argue over Breitbart (which is becoming more mainstream and newsworthy, though possibly not there yet) - though probably still a lost cause on WP (as attested by discussions here). WND (and Citizenwells) is a total nonstarter.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Today’s lead story in WND asks: “Has Rabbi Schneerson been resurrected?” and goes on to suggest the end of times is nigh. Is there any reason for this discussion to continue here? Objective3000 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not reliable. Reliability on Wikipedia is based on a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in reporting. There is no evidence of such a reputation. To the contrary, our article on WND states: "WND has drawn controversy for its promotion of conspiracy theories, including ones about Barack Obama's citizenship, and is considered to be a far right fringe website." Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not reliable While WP:BDP is usually restricted to less than 2 years, the principles behind it still apply. Note the bit about living relatives, contentious info, suicide etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WND should be fine for use for opinions and commentary, but probably not for reporting facts, and do not meet WP:RS. Bottomline, if a story WND reported has not been reported by reliable sources as well, it's most likely false and should be left out of WP. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WND is never reliable. Normally, reputation is contextual, but WND routinely invents stories and even quotes whole-cloth. I wouldn't even cite it for opinion pieces - even opinion pieces require at least some degree of WP:RS for the site where they were posted, to establish the credentials of the person whose opinion is being cited and the relevance of their opinion, to perform basic fact-checking against egregious falsehood and so on. WND simply fails RS entirely - they regularly and unabashedly invent stories whole-cloth without regard for accuracy and without any effort at corrections, retractions, or fact-checking. If something worthwhile appears there and nowhere else, it does not belong on Wikipedia at all, and if it appears anywhere better, that secondary site ought to be our source. I don't feel there's any legitimate reason to site WND outside of the vanishingly rare situation where WND itself is the topic of discussion, and even then I'd require a secondary source to establish noteworthiness and relevance (and would probably argue against citing WND even then, since the secondary source is sufficient and I feel that WND's reputation is bad enough that citing it at all even under that one situation where we theoretically could without violating policy still damages the reputation of both that article and the encyclopedia as a whole.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am currently working on the Syed Shahabuddin article with the hope of promoting to GA status. I am wondering whether this Source can be considered as a reliable source for quoting information about Mr.Shahabuddin's educational details, political and diplomatic career amongst others. The author of the text of the source is a former Indian Foreign Service officer and someone close to Shahabuddin. Please give your thoughts. Thanks. RRD (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine for simple biographical facts, though not for flattering (or obviously unflattering) assessments. WP:BLPSELFPUB allows such use even for sources published by the subject, which applies a fortiori to an obituary published by a respected figure in a respected journal. Eperoton (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just checking to be sure (I am unfamiliar with these sites), but are The Reel World and Film School Rejects considered reliable sources for news on upcoming films? DarkKnight2149 02:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This post is gathering cob webs... A response would be appreciated. DarkKnight2149 23:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RS (it is being called a newpaper)? It is being used for this "Today Italy is officially a NATO nuclear weapons sharing state but it's common belief in the country that it stores its own nuclear weapons in La Spezia Italian Navy arsenal."?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a newspaper, it's a news portal run by a major telco. I'm not sure they have a newsroom, since they mostly seem to be republishing reports from ANSA, which is a RS. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are they RS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "they" refers to. An ANSA report republished by this portal would be reliable. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They refers to Tiscali themselves, not who they repeat. ANSA is RS, so that would be the go to source. What about someone using Tiscali and not ANSA? As I understand it just because a sources uses RS does not confer RS status on it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here (sorry I forgot) is the page in question [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes that helps. First, the statement is not in the source. Second, the report isn't from ANSA. Third, it simply quotes a 2008 conversation between Francesco Cossiga and an unnamed journalist, which was also reported in La Repubblica, but didn't seem to get much coverage otherwise. Eperoton (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the point, it is just a repeat of another article, and thus they do not appear to have an editorial policy, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The story you linked to seems to be a bit of political gossip published directly on the Tiscali portal. Its reliability as an independent news organization is unclear, but does that really matter when the same gossip was published in a mainstream newspaper (la Repubblica) and its relationship to your quote above appears to be a case of source misrepresentation? Eperoton (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it is the one being used as a source, and maybe again.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms: 1) The story you linked to can't be used to source the statement you quoted regardless of what we say about the portal, because that's source misrepresentation; 2) Its reliability to source the actual Cossiga quote is questionable, but la Repubblica could be used instead (if judged to be due); 3) Reliability is context-dependent, and I don't think we can make a sweeping generalization about the portal. Eperoton (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would this website be considered reliable? [8] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a primary source (in the sense they own and restore films. So they may well be RS for information about themselves, but as they do not seem to be anything more then a film restoration and rental company what do you want to use them for?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would use them in the article List of anime by release date (pre-1939) for old film release dates/info [9]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, it can be used as a reliable source for List of anime by release date (pre-1939). Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, embedded in a bunch of edit-warring [10]

The rechargeable alkaline battery used to be a thing (late '90s). You may not have seen them before, I can't find any on sale anywhere today. There is some debate at this article as to whether it should say "superseded by improvements to the NiMH battery" - which are everywhere these days. There are two issues:

• Sourcing needed to prove a negative. IMHO, the onus is on the editor claiming that the specific type is still popular to source this.
• Quality of an added source: ^[1] (web searching for it suggests this: [11], "Alkaline rechargeables are seeing increasing sales but Lithium-ion type batteries contribute most of the growth. ") This is a commercial market research paper from 2016, claiming to predict 2020 sales. No-one has read it (it's as expensive as these always are), just that one snippet. More commonly, reports are like this: [12] where alkaline is no longer even listed as a technology for rechargeables.

I cannot explain this outlier report, but nor do I see it as sufficient cause to change the whole conclusion of an article, as regards the present day. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can probably be used to describe predicted trends, but I agree that we shouldn't represent those as describing the current situation... —PaleoNeonate – 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Jared Taylor, many of the sources being used to support the contention he is a "white supremacist" (as a statement of fact) refer to claims made on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.

^{[1] [2]}

I have argued that their label only constitutes opinion, not fact, since they are a nonprofit group of attorneys, and attorneys make allegations; they do not decide on the outcome of cases. The SPLC's classification of Taylor as a "white supremacist" is not supported by any comparison of something he has said, written, or done in comparison to any provided definition for white supremacy. To take their word for it - considering the controversy over how they label many others - seems dubious to me.

I notice, also, that on the links I provided, they don't actually directly call him a white supremacist. They claim of his views that "most would describe [them] as crudely white supremacist," which would seem to be a clear cut indication that even they are acknowledging this is merely their opinion. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, Jared Taylor is a white supremacist, that's pretty clear and concurred on by numerous Reliable Sources. [13] [14] [15]

Man are the people on here disingenuous. Source #20 says absolutely nothing about Taylor being a white supremacist. Do you even bother to read the stuff you link? We're not discussing OTHER SOURCES, anyway, we are discussing the SPLC (and these other sources that make these claims are basing them on what the SPLC and its members say). 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. SPLC is a known WP:RS with a longstanding and well-deserved reputation for accuracy in their reporting on hate groups. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they are? What's your source for this? Because this article says otherwise. Would you feel comfortable going to the pages of Maajid Nawaaz, who says he is filing a defamation suit against the SPLC for classifying him as an anti-Muslim extremist, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and saying they are anti-Muslim extremists? Because the totally reliable SPLC says they are. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC source in question is not simply someone's unresearched opinion, it is a summary of Taylor's own words. One cannot have investigated the source with intellectual honesty and concluded that it is opinionated allegation. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of white supremacy: "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races." It is intellectually dishonest to think SPLC has accurately reflected Taylor's views based on Taylor's words. They have provided nothing to support that Taylor's views in any way fit the definition of white supremacy. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, trying to describe the SPLC as "only constitutes opinion, not fact, since they are a nonprofit group of attorneys, and attorneys make allegations; they do not decide on the outcome of cases" tells us some important things:

1. The commenter does not understand the full breadth of what the SPLC does, or understand that its online and periodical reporting are longstanding publications that have won awards for investigative and accurate journalism.

You do not seem to understand that they actually have a horrible reputation for being inaccurate and deceitful among non-leftists. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. The commenter does not understand, or is deliberately trying to confuse, wikipedia policy on verifiability and reliability for inclusion of verbage in an article and attempting to make some bizarre "until there's a court ruling saying someone is a white supremacist we can't say it" argument that is completely inconsistent with policy.

So wikipedia's policy is that it is OK to make statements about someone as though they are fact based on mere allegations from attorneys? Lawyers said so, therefore it must be true? 24.178.250.78 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... yeah. SPLC are reliable. And yes, they are reliable for this purpose. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the whole facade in the current definition of nationalism = alt right is ludicrous and nothing more than MSM advocacies and pundits, doesn't matter how many left leaning sources make the claim - the people they label deny it and so does the political opposition. It is a highly disputed claim, and as an encyclopedia, we have to be extremely cautious labeling BLPs "white supremacists" as it is a highly derogatory term. The only source that even comes close to quoting such terminology is NPR of the three mentioned - The Guardian - no; SPLC is questionable per Politico and The Atlantic. Also, be cautious of how that term is used EVERYWHERE ON WP as it could easily be construed as a violation of BLP policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian source "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist who runs the self-termed “race-realist” magazine American Renaissance," hard to see how that is not saying he is a white supremacist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is far to center left; therefore, questionable and not a RS for quoting such derogatory claims. Search the archives and you'll see how it's considered. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I filled my "alt-right/talk radio doublespeak" bingo card. ;) Morty C-137 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, too late - I already Bingo'd!! I've been using the policy card if you're interested. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing a lot of labels being added here and there lately, and I still am unsure where I stand on the question. However, I'd like to point to WP:Terrorist as a possible guideline for these issues. The general gist is that such labels will be attributed to the source at the most, not in Wikivoice. Arkon (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Atsme. Just for fun, could you explain what "left" or "right" has to do with whether the bloke is a White Supremecist? SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there back at ya, SPECIFICO. As much as it may take all the fun out of your question, could you be more specific because I'm not quite sure what statement you're referencing with regards to "left" or "right" having to do with white supremacy? Was it something I said? It's okay if you quote the statement. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was this one [16] that caught my neutral eye. BTW I have no problem attributing to an organization like SPLC or ADL that's respected for such judgments. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This. At minimum, the label must be attributed to SPLC. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - so that's what you took away from my comment about the Guardian? smh I really do have better things to do with my time than spend it trying to explain policies that all editors should know, such as WP:BLP, and wasting my time answering questions that are conjectural interpretations of something I said. Keep in mind that editors are obligated to remove any contentious material about a living person that is (1) unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is a conjectural interpretation of a source; (3) relies on self-published sources, or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. I'd say The Guardian and SPLC fall right in line with #1 & #3 respectively, and unless the NPR has specifically called the guy a white supremacist, I'd be concerned about "conjectural interpretation". ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. See WP:BLPADMINS.

Good point. But, this isn’t a general value-laden label like cult, bigot or racist. It’s a specific ideology. Although, one could argue for attribution. Objective3000 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every reliable source available uses the term. Do we have to go through and laundry-list them? That's ridiculous and unencylopedic. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not MSM's job to be the judge and jury of what is or isn't racist or supremacy, especially considering any person who defends their race is considered a racist, and whether or not they're called racial supremacists depends on what news source you're reading. It's bullhonkey - if you attempt to cite such a derogatory claim to a questionable source, don't be surprised by the response of other GF editors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely non-scientific response incoming: Your argument that "Pretty much every reliable source uses..." is rather unlikely. A quick and dirty and completely unreliable search of google news shows 5x the amount of articles without the term than with. I've been on the other side of this so I understand the frustration. Arkon (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. "quick and dirty google news search" has very little, if any, relation to sources that are WP:RS.
2. The arguments from the IP and Atsme pretty much boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT or "I hate MSM so there" right-wingspeak. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Atsme pointed out two sources who feel that the SPLC has gotten a little free and easy drumming up their base.Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish Morty C-137 would cite WP:BLP more often since it's policy and what we're talking about here is noncompliance with policy by using questionable sources to make a derogatory statement about a BLP. There is simply no good reason for doing so, whether an editor happens to agree with the statement or not. It violates one of our 3 core content policies and that is where the focus needs to be. The onus is on the editor who wants to include such a derogatory statement so instead of wasting everyone's time trying to argue for inclusion of a BLP violation, spend it citing policy that says it is compliant. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate policy on this is WP: V, and WP: BLP, specifically WP: BLPSPS and WP: SPS. While the SPLC is considered an expert on hate groups and extremists, the documents on its web page are self published. Policy on self published sources is "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (emphasis original). We can use SPLC's opinion if it is published in a independent reliable source, and then we still must attribute the statement to the SPLC. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, the SPLC isn't a "self-published source." Self-publishing generally refers to a single person's blog, website or self-published book; the SPLC is not a self-published source, but rather an editorial entity with identifiable editorial structure, fact-checking policies and standards, along with an identifiable history of corrections and retractions when mistakes are made (c.f. their apology to Ben Carson). Therefore, much like an opinion published on the American Enterprise Institute's website or by the Anti-Defamation League, its opinion can be directly cited as an opinion. That said, it's best practice anytime to use more independent reliable sources rather than simply directly citing opinions from interest groups. In the case of this article, there are plenty of reliable sources to be found citing those opinions, and they are cited. Other cites can include the ADL, which describes his ideology as "intellectualized white supremacy." [17] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in line with policy, self published is explained fully in the note attached. If the SPLC is publishing things on it's website, the only people are reviewing it are the SPLC. From WP: SPS "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos: " the SPLC doesn't send it's content outside to be published, they are the very definition of a self published expert source. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...umm, no. That's not what "self published", as a pejorative, means. It means, in pre-internet terms, some whacko with a mimeograph, or some more prosperous whacko with an account at a vanity publisher. Anmccaff (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think policy is wrong feel free to try to change it. But I'm quoting policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...(edit conflict)like the Devil quotes scripture, yeah. You appear not to understand what the words mean though, so you differ a little from Cloutie in that respect. Every news organization I know of has a similar arrangement, in the sense that work isn't generally vetted externally. Anmccaff (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is not a news organization, and news organizations have their own section of policy for self published media, it's called WP: NEWSBLOG. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News organizations employ fact-checkers and editors, and those are the "independent reviewers" we refer to. Similarly, the SPLC employs editors who review content, and as demonstrated, they fact-check, correct and retract mistakes. That is the definition of a reliable source. As WP:RS/SPS discusses, "self-publishing" in Wikipedia's context refers to blogs, newsletters, self-published books, etc. that are not reviewed for accuracy by anyone who isn't the author. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media. Content published by the SPLC is not "self-published" for Wikipedia purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be applying WP: NEWSBLOG, but that part of policy only applies to Newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations. From the SPLC's about us page "The SPLC is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality." it is clear that they are not a newspaper, magazine, or other news organization, but an advocacy group. Internal reviews of an advocacy group have an inherent conflict of interest. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this all beside the point? You agree it should be attributed right? I think that's really the only question left on the table. Arkon (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anmccaff and NBSB are correct: the SPLC is not a self-published source. The policy, WP:SPS, refers to self-published books (i.e., vanity presses), "personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs," etc. The SPLC does not fit this description. It is a longstanding, highly-respected organization, with a professional staff, that is frequently cited by academics and the press. Indeed, the SPLC has won multiple journalism awards. Neutrality^talk 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the above link with the label "multiple journalism awards". It says "the Intelligence Report — the quarterly magazine published by the Southern Poverty Law Center and written by the authors of this blog -- has won an important award." So not only is this not evidence of multiple awards for splcenter.org, it's evidence that splcenter.org is a blog according to splcenter.org. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect on two counts. Please read links before commenting. First, as the link shows, SPLC has won a Utne Independent Press Award (2007) and two Society of Professional Journalists awards (2003, 2005). Additionally, the SPLC's senior fellow Mark Potok, prior to joining the SPLC "spent 20 years as an award-winning journalist at major newspapers, including USA Today, the Dallas Times Herald and The Miami Herald."

Second, a personal blog is different from a professional blog with editorial standards. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Whether or not a work is called a blog is, by itself, immaterial. Neutrality^talk 23:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect on four counts. Please read links and policies and Kyohyi's explanations before commenting. First, the link says what I quoted -- only Intelligence Report won an award, not the same as SPLC's website, which is the subject here (the Jared Taylor article is citing splcenter.org multiple times but Intelligence Report only once). Second, WP:NEWSBLOG does not override WP:BLPSPS, which is for both "personal and group blogs" and the only exception is for a blog by professional writers which is "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" -- but in this case there's no evidence of editorial control and no newspaper, and (except once) the writers are Anonymous (who?) or Heidi Beirich (who?) or Stephen Piggott (who?), and the words "editorial standards" are not there. Third, only one (out of seven) cites is to an article co-written by Potok, the one quoted as saying "Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face" etc. -- words that aren't in the cited article. Fourth, it was Neutrality who decided the so-called multiple journalism awards item is worth citing and Neutrality who claims it's credible, yet Neutrality says we should ignore what it says about being a blog. I'll concede, though, that although SPLC itself repeatedly calls splcenter.org/hatewatch blog, I didn't find the same clarity about other splcenter.org sections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC (like the Anti-Defamation League) is a very reliable source on topics relating to U.S. domestic extremism and hate groups. Both groups have a professional staff. The SPLC's publications, such as its quarterly Intelligence Report, have won multiple journalism awards. Often these sources are the only significant, in-depth accounts on radical groups in the United States. Both organizations are identified by scholars as key sources in books published by respected publishing houses, including a number of university presses. See, e.g. Chen 2006 (SPLC and ADL are authoritative sources for identifying domestic extremists and hate groups"); Hoffman 2006 (citing both SPLC and ADL, noting that the latter is "one of the most authoritative of the groups monitoring the militia phenomenon"); Perry 2001 (both SPLC and ADAL provide "an invaluable service for the public"); Neiwert 2013 ("the Southern Poverty Law Center ... remains the most assidous, detailed, and dependently factual of all the organizations that gather and publish information on the radical right in America"); Spitzer 2001 (SPLC is "a nationally respected organization devoted to tracking domestic terrorist and racist groups"). Neutrality^talk 19:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Works published in 2013, 2008, and 2001 do little to counteract the concerns raised at Politico and The Atlantic recently, though. Anmccaff (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that the work's widespread use by others has diminished. As to criticism of the group's work, it seems mostly isolated to a few cases. And, in any case, the fact that a source has been criticized does not make it unreliable. The BBC, Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, etc. have all been criticized, but that does not make them unreliable. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All you are describing is a self-published expert source. However policy states that we still don't use them for living people, if there contribution to that particular subject is notable it will be covered in independent sources.--Kyohyi (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohyi: this is not a self-published source. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality: Demonstrate independent reviewers (Independent of the SPLC) and I'll concede the point. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, numerous RS describe him as a white supremacist, including ultra-reliable, very weighty sources like the Times Higher Education Supplement, which not only calls him a white supremacist, but identifies him as "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement. So a) the question of a weather the SLPC is a sufficient source for this is moot, since its not the only source, and b) some of y'all are disturbingly quick to jump on the "let's just whitewash this white supremacist's BLP cause altrighters are butthurt" bandwagon. Read up on him, look at his own writings and statements. He is a white supremacist, and many very high quality RS identify him as such. There are even peer-reviewed tertiary works like this, which says he's a "major force in white supremacist circles." There is literally nothing to discuss here. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to realize is that those other sources circle back around to the same sources - either SPLC or the ADL, both sources I consider to lack the impartiality to just trust them labeling someone in the absence of seeing their proof. I've looked at his writings and statements and nothing he has said falls under the definition of white supremacy. Every dictionary says they're wrong. That's what called my attention to the reliability of SPLC - the fact that calling him a white supremacist, through my independent research, is clearly inaccurate. When something isn't true, yet there are media sources saying it is, something doesn't add up. In going through the material, the SPLC is connected to the vast majority of situations where he is labeled this. If it isn't a source from their own website, it's an article either linking to their website or quoting Mark Potok from their organization. 24.178.250.78 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally nothing to discuss here the question posed is Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist?, Jared Taylor being one instance. I'd say there is plenty to discuss. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, put me in the "yes, it's reliable" camp. If SPLC was the only source calling someone a white supremacist I would probably say we should attribute that to them rather than stating it as fact, but if (as in Taylor's case) there are numerous other RS that say the same thing then there is no issue. But seriously, where else has this come up? This is why we shouldn't (and generally don't) deal with open-ended "is x reliable" questions - it depends on the specific case, how the SPLC source is being used, and what other RS say about the same subject/person. In Taylor's case, it's fine to state that he's a supremacist and the SPLC is fine to use as a source (along with the other sources which have already been brought up here and on the article talk page). If there's are other articles where SPLC's reliability is an issue, then people should point out what those articles are. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this is getting sidetracked. In my mind, the dispute isn't about sources, it's about labeling BLP's in Wikivoice as something...hateful? I don't know the best way to describe that, but see my reference to WP:Terrorist above. I believe it applies in this case, and have had to bow to it's guidance in the past (not SPLC related, FBI related actually). Arkon (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the SPLC is a reliable source to support the white supremacist description and is a common source used for this. When the SPLC reports it, it's usually not difficult to find other sources confirming it. —PaleoNeonate – 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attributed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —PaleoNeonate – 02:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this discuss is derailing on "reliability". That's not the issue. I'll take various points that because they have editorial practices we expect of reliable sources, that SPLC is "reliable". But "reliable" does not equal "factual", only that information that we're going to take as fact related to BLPs should only come from reliable sources. Reliable sources can be biased, and can be biased on a case-by-case, so not everything published by an RS should be assumed to be a statement of fact. So the question becomes is the SPLC a non-biased source to call this person a white supremacist, and that answer should be clearly no, given that the SPLC is very much fighting against white supremacy among other ideological aspects. As such, we can use this label with attribution, but we can't leave it as bare fact in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can SPLC be used as a source? Yes. Is citing it alone sufficient to label someone as a white supremacist in WP voice in their BLP? No, we need evidence that this is a preponderant characterization of the person found in the body RSs which discuss that person. We need to take into account WP:NPOV and not just WP:V, in particular when we consider including potentially libelous material in a BLP. Eperoton (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The SPLC is a reliable source for an attributed statement, like "According to the SPLC, Sławomir Biały is a white supremacist" (with a citation that directly supports this attributed statement). The question of whether to include this attributed statement is one of WP:WEIGHT, but I am inclined to think that weight would typically favor inclusion: the SPLC, as a policy thinktank that tracks and studies hate groups, is a high quality source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's agree that attribution is required and close this. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbsup.jpg Arkon (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not even remotely a consensus around that silliness. Morty C-137 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely would not say that attribution is always required - especially in cases like Taylor, where the SPLC is just one of many eminently reliable sources that apply the "supremacist" label. Each case should be weighed separately. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so quick to blindly accept the SPLC as reliable. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not.

• "How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?". The Atlantic.

• "Branding Moderates as "Anti-Muslim"". Wall Street Journal.

• "SPLC receives backlash after placing activist Maajid Nawaz on "anti-Muslim extremist" list". Yahoo! News.

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center's extremist list isn't a Consumer Reports guide. It's a political tool". Philanthropy Roundtable.

• "Who is the Hate Group?". Foreign Policy.

• ""Hate," Immigration, and the Southern Poverty Law Center". Harpers Magazine.

• "Lantos Foundation Calls Out Southern Poverty Law Center". Lantos Foundation.

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group". Washington Examiner.

• "Southern Poverty Law Center brands some peaceful groups as "hate groups"". Fox News.

• "I'm A Muslim Reformer. Why Am I Being Smeared as an "Anti-Muslim Extremist"?". The Daily Beast.

• "The white left has issued its first fatwa". The Spectator.

• "The SPLC which has sadly fallen from a group that once fought Klansmen and Nazis to protect rights down to the level of a shrill, doctrinaire, orthodox-leftist flailing denouncer of miscellaneous petty thoughtcrime. It is no longer to be trusted or taken seriously. If you want your money to support people protecting the powerless from violent bigotry rather than funding the sophomoric assembly of tendentious enemies lists, you should donate elsewhere". Popehat.

• "A New Blacklist From the Southern Poverty Law Center Marks the Demise of a Once-Vital Organization". Hudson Institute. (Also published in Tablet Magazine[18])

• "After conservative backlash, charity tracker GuideStar removes "hate group" labels". Washington Post.

• "King of Fearmongers". Weekly Standard.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to conclude this (free ranging and overreaching) discussion about the SPLC with the consensus that material from this source used in BLPs should be attributed to the SPLC as this not only clarifies wikivoice issues but also transfers notability from the SPLC to the subject being discussed - as is the case with Jared Taylor. In the case of the lede of his article, however it is less relevant to make this attribution as numerous sources characterize him in this way; many of the sources interchangeably using the words white supremacist and white nationalist in the same article, inspite of efforts by those invested in those terms to distinguish between them. I notice a POV/neutrality tag has just been added to this page, presumably as a result of this discussion, in which the person who tagged the article is involved. Since this discussion seems to be free from the confines of any particular focus perhaps we could also add what the person who tagged it feels needs to be done before it can be removed to the list of topics. Edaham (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, did you by chance see the BLP made subject of this discussion? I couldn't believe my eyes or what I was reading. The BLP violations were so blatant, and when I removed them, my edits were reverted. It appears the page may need to be locked down as it is not much more than an attack page with the overuse of SPL for practically every defamatory statement. I think it's critical and needs administrator attention. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I have no intention of doing so. If there is a BLP problem, post it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If there is a problem with editor disruption, post it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where we only discuss whether sources are reliable.

I also challenge the claim that there is a consensus to use the SPLC as a reference in BLPs, even if attributed. As the references I posted above clearly show, the SPLC is not a reliable source in any situation where a claim is only found at the SPLC website or another source that quotes the SPLC. If there exists another reliable source for the claim, use that source instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your tagging of the article, removal of consensus material, subsequent edit warring and threat of ANI in your edit summary. You might want to browse the talk page at that article. Edaham (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: I replied on my talk page, but I think others who are involved here would benefit from this too: you appear to be laboring under a misperception that labelling Taylor a "white supremacist" rests only on sourcing to the SPLC. But nothing could be further from the truth. I spent about 10 minutes just now and found a number of high-quality RS in which he is variously described as "a white supremacist/seperatist," a "Virignia White Supremacist," a "major force in white supremacist circles," "one of the leaders" of the white supremacist movement, and "Jared Taylor, a white supremacist". So no, not a BLP vio, but rather the faithful reporting of a fact that is supported by numerous high-quality RS. Your edit is WP:FALSEBALANCE at best, and a blatant, POV whitewash at worst. Please bring yourself up to speed on the article's talk page and look at the RS before jumping in with a wholesale rewrite like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick addition: this is someone that the New York Times has described as "long one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists." Did those of you throwing a hissy fit in this... person's defense look at any RS at all before crying BLP? It's pretty embarrassing (for you guys, if not for the project) that we are even having this conversation... Fyddlestix (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I lost any faith in this list when I saw a blog (Popehat, really?) on that lengthy and misrepresented list. Then I looked deeper and counted up the number of opinion columns. Looks like what you have is a meaningless Gish Gallop there. Morty C-137 (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explain in what way the Atlantic is an unreliable source. Then provide a single shred of evidence that Maajid Nawaz is an "Anti-Muslim Extremist"[19] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to toss my two cents in this debate and note that I pretty much agree with Morty C-137's assessment in that its just opinion pieces. Does the SPLC have an agenda? Obviously. Does that make the the SPLC unreliable? Not inherently, I'll argue. Though I would like to say I think the evidence we have here for Taylor being a white supremacist is quite clear. Saying the SPLC gives him the label might be UNDUE, but the label itself seems quite accurate as per reliable sources. This conversation seems to have gotten quite out of hand -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

READ WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and if you're still not convinced, read Charles Manson and Hitler. Show me where it states in the lead for the latter or former the opinions of what you are calling RS newspapers...and if any BLP deserved labeling, I'd say it had to be Manson (Hitler is not a BLP). Learn what it means to write in a dispassionate tone, neutral, etc. The SPL is an advocacy and as such is NOT a RS no matter how many times you assert that it is, it is not. The fact that editors have expressed such a passion to label this BLP is more concerning than the label itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - write like you're writing for an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Hanging labels to disparage and discredit people you hate doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment hit the nail on the head. Indy beetle, whether or not the claim is correct is irrelevant here. Please look at the top of this bpage and read the name of the noticeboard. The only questions are [1] Is the SPLC a reliable source (no, it printed claim about Maajid Nawaz without checking the facts, and refuses to retract now that those claims have been refuted, so we cannot trust it). Is there another source for the claim (yes, the New York Times, which does check facts and print retractions). End of discussion. Use the reliable source, and discard the unreliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before trying to hang your hat on Mawaz, YOU might want to "check the facts", Guy Macon. His story doesn't exactly add up (link, just as valid as most of your previous dishonest gish gallop). And you might want to ACTUALLY check the SPLC coverage, versus posting a bunch of breathless-and-credulous opinion pieces and an interview piece that wasn't fact checked. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen one source so far that justifies labeling this guy a white supremacist in WP voice. NPOV policy is clear:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

BLP policy is clear: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Some of the sources used actually cite SPL; therefore, are not reliable so if editors are using those sources to label a BLP a white supremacist, you are throwing caution to the wind. Pay heed to policy and don't let your personal feelings get you blocked. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. As has been repeatedly pointed out SPLC is only ONE of many sources which use this description. (The complaint than switched to "well, I don't own those other sources so it's not verifiable" which is of course nonsense). This is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
2. Since it's not just SPLC, this does not need attribution.
3. here's been a concerned effort over the past several months to poison the well at the SPLC article itself by piling in any and all criticisms that can be dredged from whatever corner of the internet one can trawl. The end purpose appears to be to then use that as an excuse to weasel articles like this and remove appropriate descriptions. This is both disruptive and WP:GAME.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also - Atsme: "I've not seen one source so far that justifies labeling this guy" - I don't know if you've "seen" such sources but the fact is that these were put right in front of you multiple times, so please drop the act. It's annoying and tendentious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is he does have a point, we should say he has been called this, rather than he is. The user then spoils this by making it quite clear this is a pure care of "I dont like it". RS call him a white supremacist, end of story can we close this now.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: for a BLP, it is probably best to say "he's been called A, by X,Y,Z" - unless he's said he's an A or it is manifestly obvious he is A (which would require a preponderance of evidence - e.g. Anders Behring Breivik). SPLC by itself is biased (particularly recently), and it certainly should be attributed if it is a single source and also if it is one of a few (counting journalistic reports based on these labels is not always accurate). SPLC is definitely notable - if they list someone as A, it probably should be noted on the BLP page, with attribution to SPLC.Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Volunteer Marek has ably pointed out, there is a concerted effort by hate groups and the extremist conservative/reactionary movements to poison the well and attack the SPLC over the past few years, and this is just more of that. The total lie being offered by the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd coming here in support of a known and almost universally acknowledged (at least by reliable sources) white supremacist, claiming that it's "only" the SPLC that notes Jared Taylor as a white supremacist when that couldn't be further from the truth, is an effort to game the system and nothing more. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It cuts both ways - previously the SPLC was used across the (95%+) of the political spectrum (even by some so called reactionaries). Some, but not all, of their labeling of late has become contentious (and the labels themselves have become "weaponized" - much more than the past - possibly since being termed as a supremacist has become more and more derogatory (in the past more of these people "wore the label with pride"), and they aren't as widely accepted as they were in the past. In any event - it is best to attribute this to them in a BLP if the LP doesn't state himself as such.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

I'd like to see Atsme, or one of the other Jared Taylor defenders, explain how this guy isn't a white supremacist. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Taylor defender, but I believe Taylor could claim that treating whites as a minority group as any other, and dismissing "white guilt" is not supremacist, but rather promoting equality for whites - in and of itself the poster campaign itself (even with the Nazi and Soviet dog whistles - which are mainly color/graphic allusions and are not explicit) is not a clear-cut supremacist message (it could definitely be construed as such, and as part of an ensemble of wider activities be evidence of such, but not by itself).Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) (fixed missing not)Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the KKK claim with similar (nonsense) arguments that they're not a white supremacist / racist organization, but wikipedia policy doesn't say we have to treat patent bullshit as if it had any basis in truth. Morty C-137 (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The poster campaign is not strong evidence (some of Taylor's words and deeds are much stronger, as is labeling of himself as such by groups of some repute). It's not as clear cut with Taylor, as he doesn't openly argue for white supremacy (and he actually believes that Asians are superior to whites intelligence wise). Taylor's position (as I understand it, perhaps wrongly!) is that he is standing up for "white rights" - just as other people are standing up for African Americans, Hispanics, etc. On the face of it, this is not a supremacist argument. With the KKK labeling is much easier, as they are/were actively advocating (per my understanding) for white supremacy over blacks, Jews, and various other groups (Irish, Catholics, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you're admitting you have no clue about Taylor's positions. His dodges are just WP:WEASEL words. If you read the quotations the SPLC compiled fully, it's crystal clear that he absolutely is in favor of white supremacism. The "I'm not a supremacist, I just want my race superior here and the other races to go live elsewhere" separatism thing is still white supremacism. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His words and actions have been interpreted by others like the SPLC as being a white supremastic, but that does not necessarily mean that he himself is a white supremacist, particularly given that it has a "flexible" definition depending on who writes about it. That's the whole issue with things like labels like "white supremacist" is that they are not clear objective bounds that provide neat and clean classifications of people, but attempt to place people into catagories that could only objectively be determined by reading the person's thoughts - which is impossible to do - so we're stuck with interpreting actions and behavior as a sign. Add that in this context, the "white supremacist" label is being used by the sources as a badge of shame, purposely making it contentious, and that simply means that we shouldn't assume that it is fact and just rely on using in-source attribution to state who is calling him that label, as per BLP/NPOV. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit and WP:WEASEL words. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's part of being a neutral work. Assigning inline attribution to contentious labels (which requires only a few extra words) does zero harm from our stance, while leaving them as bare statements of facts can be potentially harmful to the BLP and to WP should the BLP seek action against stuff. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The KKK has identified itself as a social club, community service organization, and other such. The leaders of such organizations rarely stand up and give a Cornerstone_Speech. Which is why we rely on an organization like the SPLC, which digs more deeply, to add the term White Supremacist to the article. But, as Masem says, that calls for in-source attribution. Objective3000 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, that is begging the question. The Politico and The Atlantic articles referred to multiple times above question whether SPLC is always digging deeply, and suggest it is sometimes shooting from the hip. That's a real question about its "reliability" in the day-to-day, common sense. Anmccaff (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The modern KKK groups made life for us easier in that they choose to use the same name (and claiming some historical continuity) used by previous incarnations of the Klan which lynched black people and did various other things. The positions (when the rather amorphous modern movement is visible) are more clear cut. Morty C-137 - I think it is best to separate what you think about this man (and what many of us may agree to), and how it is best to describe him in Wiki's voice given BLP policy and the label being contentious. Attributing the label is best here - as this isn't an "open and shut, slam dunk" label on the face of it - it requires connecting some dots (which the SPLC, ADL, and others - have done).Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This right here. A lot of these issues that involve BLP and labels like "white supremacist" are from editors that seem to feel strongly that these labels must apply (and counter, there's editors that want to rid these labels for similar reasons). Inclusion of the labels should be driven by UNDUE/WEIGHT validation from NPOV - so here, more than enough sources to support this label - but as editors we can't allow personal feelings for how strongly a label must apply to ignore the principles of BLP/NPOV which is simply to attribute labels to sources. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's a white supremacist. There is widespread agreement in this wording among Reliable Sources, nevermind the extremist hate wing's hard-on for slandering the SPLC in the past few years. There is no BLP violation in repeating the wording that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources agree on. Morty C-137 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. This is someone who numerous high quality RS don't just call a white supremacist, but actually single out as "one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists", stating that as fact and without needing to attribute it to anyone. More sources here. Seriously seems like some of you are not reading (or just choosing to ignore) what RS say about Taylor. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. it isn't well said at all. it's partisan garbage. Are you seriously claiming that the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on? If this were in some serious forum, that'd border on actionable. Anmccaff (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth Anmccaff, I didn't say any of what you're suggesting there. And that Atlantic piece is an op-ed, the NYT link I just gave you is a straightforward news story. One of those things is a RS for facts, the other is not. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you did. You read those words by Morty C-137, and you responded to them with "well said." You adopted those words with that. Henceforth, a noticeable number of wikipedians are going to immediately think "Oh yeah, Fyddlestix, he's the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC", because that's what you essentially agreed with there. Maybe it'll become a kind of Homeric epithet; you know, "Dawn" is "rosy-fingered"; "Fyddlestix" is "the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC." Anmccaff (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty pointless and unproductive tangent to go off on... Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, Anmccaff is pretty rudely and dishonestly misrepresenting the overall coverage of The Atlantic, and her false accusation trying to put words in others' mouths here is just beyond the pale. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect that newspapers will provide attribution for why they call a person something; as long as they aren't accusing them of some type of crime without evidence, they are free to drop whatever labels they want. We (en.wiki) are better than that as we are an encyclopedia, and one that tries to remain neutral. Providing attribution to a claim otherwise made across the board that can otherwise never be objectively proven does no harm and makes us more neutral. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Uggh. Messed up threading above. I do find it noteworthy that The Guardian refers to Taylor as a white supremacist without any sort of attribution. I'm less convinced by the other sources that have been suggested (e.g., that Taylor is alt-right, and the alt-right includes white supremacist views). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by this comment - Taylor self-identifies as alt-right and is regularly referred to as one of its leaders by everyone from the NYT to Fox News, so I'm not sure how much doubt there could be about that. And we already have numerous RS saying he's white supremacist is plain English, many of them without parsing that through "alt-right," or even mentioning alt-right (see above, and the Taylor article's talk page for examples). Fyddlestix (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alt-right might include white supremacist, but not all alt-rights are white supremacist. Regarding labeling - it would be more convincing if he were labelled as "white supremacist" by right leaning outlets (fox, WSJ, National Review, etc. etc.) than center-left of left leaning outlets. (and coversely - for Islamist / Far-Left figures - labeling them is easier when they are so labelled by left leaning outlets - the Guardian (or to a lesser degree NYT which is more centrist) is very convincing for these, but much less so for the specific labeling of far-right).Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah basically. If there are lots of sources really using the supremacist label, then it would be uncontentious. But at the moment, The Guardian's usage seems like an aberration that may be the result of political leanings rather than fine parsing of the far right's political views. Just my tuppence. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was just the Guardian? Seems like maybe you missed the other sources that have already been provided (multiple times...) Fyddlestix (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic calls American Renaissance white supremacist. It also calls the Council of Conservative Citizens white supremacist (Taylor is a spokesperson for the CCC). Doug Weller talk 15:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This, really. The repeated dishonesty of the pro-Taylor arguments - between bouts of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which appear more and more each time just designed to try to irritate and provoke - is just amazing. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When an amateur-run stats site says on its About page that He has literally provided us with thousands of corrections and additions, each of which are more valuable than the last., can we consider it as a reliable source for biographies such as Tom Askin? The site in question is rugbyleagueproject.org and the entry for Askin has the seemingly standard proviso All statistics shown in this section are based only on data available in the RLP database, and are not necessarily a complete and/or 100% accurate representation of a player's career. This information should be used as a guide only. If you see a question mark (?), it denotes that the figure is not available. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a useful starting place to go for information but that is as far as I would go. While it's not user-generated in that anyone can edit, it doesn't quote sources and since there is a large forum for submitting new material and corrections (I know I've submitted quite a few), there is no way of checking whether the information is compiled from reliable sources or not. That said I wouldn't throw it out with the bath water, player stats are difficult to collate and that the site acknowledges its own shortcomings is a good indicator that the efforts are genuine and like content on WP subject to change when new information becomes available. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]