Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 8 October 2016 (→Online Business News Sources which use PR:Newswire - WP:PROMOTION concerns: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?

1. Is PolitiFact a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates? The relevant context is the proposed wording in this RfC at Donald Trump. Here is the relevant source:

2. Is PolitiFact a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given? The relevant context is the proposed wording (both versions in the blue boxes) in this section at Donald Trump. Here are the relevant sources:

(Added clarification in green 22:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)) updated link underlying "in this section" as the section has been archived Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. - MrX 15:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Regarding the second question, here are full cites to the two sources linked above:

• Holan, Angie et al. "2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump", Politifact (December 21, 2015).
• Sharockman, Aaron. "The truth (so far) behind the 2016 campaign", Politifact (June 29, 2016).

The Holan article is also the source cited above for the first question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

• Yes Obviously. The claims that they are unreliable are confined to opinion pieces and unreliable sources such as Breitbart.com. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Obviously. It has all the hallmarks of reliable sourcing: a professional journalistic operation, frequent citation by others (WP:USEBYOTHERS), awards and recognition from the profession (e.g., Pulitzer Prize). Neutrality 18:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. The Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact of the 12-time Pulitzer Prize-winning Tampa Bay Times which is owned by the respected non-profit Poynter Institute is a reliable source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. I cannot add anything to the points clearly made above. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes provided the statement selected for fact-checking is clear as to what the speaker was trying to communicate and no, respectively. Yes, they are reliable for determining whether a given statement is true or false or somewhere in between. But, no, they are not a reliable source for a purported "percentage of false statements made by a political candidate" because they would then have to analyze every sentence uttered by the candidate, and evaluate it for truth or falsity, which would be completely impractical, and is not something that Politifact has ever attempted to do. They can say the percentage of false statements among those they have evaluated, but then a high percentage could simply mean that they only evaluated the statements that they most expected would be determined false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  What I meant in the second question is percentage of false statements of the statements PolitiFact evaluated. I have now clarified this in the question.- MrX 22:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if that is what you meant, then I still think that Politifact is not a reliable source for the percentage of false statements of those that they evaluated, if they fail to explain how they selected the statements to evaluate, or if they selected the statements based upon inquiries by unknown people. In the latter case, those unknown people are unreliable, and hence the percentages depending upon those unknown people are unreliable as well. And, as I previously said above, "They can say the percentage of false statements among those they have evaluated, but then a high percentage could simply mean that they only evaluated the statements that they most expected would be determined false." Please note that I have given distinct answers to the two questions posed; I request that the closer not jump to the conclusion that people who only gave one answer were attempting to answer more than the first question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Politifact is a source of both news and opinion, and Misplaced Pages treats those two things very differently in a BLP. Per WP:OR opinion pieces are primary sources rather than secondary sources, and per WP:BLPPRIMARY (which is under a section about reliable sources within WP:BLP) "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources....Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." It therefore seems to me that opinion pieces by Politifact can only be valid and reliable for our purposes if the opinion is also discussed by a reliable secondary source, and so mere inline attribution to Politifact is not enough. The RFC statement above cites a Politifact article by Angie Holan for both of the two questions posed, and that article is an opinion piece; it's title expresses an opinion about who should get an award for worst lie, and Holan goes on to make generalizations like "Donald Trump doesn’t let facts slow him down. Bending the truth or being unhampered by accuracy is a strategy he has followed for years.... when challenged, he offers flimsy explanations and suggests he shouldn’t be held accountable -- or simply insists he’s right." There are other Politifact pieces that are mainly factual rather than opinion, and I think we can use those factual pieces as reliable sources to evaluate particular statements by Trump, but this piece is opinion, and so it would require not just inline attribution but also discussion by a separate reliable secondary source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Criticisms from those not given poor ratings are generally about the concept of fact-checking as opposed to unreliability of Politfact itself. Objective3000 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes and No. My objection on the second question above is basically the same as expressed by Anythingyouwant above: While the fact-checking organizations may be reliable for the specific statements that they analyze, we need to be careful about comparing percentages of False statements between candidates. As far as I'm aware, the fact checking organizations don't use a systematic approach in selecting which and how many of a politician's statements to analyze. Unless there's some indication that the statements are chosen for analysis in a systematic, unbiased manner, percentages can't be considered objective.CFredkin (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah, exactly. That's why the OP is proposing in-text attribution for the comparison of falsehood rates: because it is inherently somewhat subjective. When a reliable source (like Politifact) makes a subjective judgement, then we convey that using in-text attribution. This is Misplaced Pages 101. MastCell  04:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Our role as editors calls on us to exercise good judgement regarding whether information is potentially mis-leading, regardless of whether it's mentioned in reliable sources. As mentioned above, factors like the selection process of the statements being analyzed can have a dramatic impact on the percentages being quoted. Thus far, no editor, either here or at the article Talk page has directly addressed this concern.CFredkin (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • In-text attribution for the percentages is necessary but more would be preferable, such as reliable third-party reporting of the Politifact percentages that is independent of Politifact. Otherwise Politifact would be in a position similar to a self-published source for material about a living person, not written or published by the subject of the biographical material. Separately, any attribution to Politifact would also be safest if supplemented by attribution to the unknown people who submitted the inquiries to Politifact, if Politifact used and were influenced by such inquiries (i.e. the nature of the inquiries could apparently significantly shape the percentages). If all of these steps are taken, I still doubt that these very malleable percentages have much relevance to the BLP, but that's a matter for discussion at the BLP talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
        • You lost me. Politifact is not a self-published source, nor is it "in a position similar to a self-published source", and I don't see how you can maneuver it into being one. It's a third-party reliable source, and can be used for statements of fact as well as for properly attributed opinion (the latter according to WP:RSOPINION). MastCell  17:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources....Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." If we use Politifact as a primary source about its own opinion regarding these percentages, then it would be best to also use a separate secondary source that discusses Politifact's percentages, IMHO.. Additionally, any attribution to Politifact would be safest if supplemented by attribution to the unknown people who submitted the inquiries to Politifact, if Politifact used and were influenced by such inquiries (i.e. the nature of the inquiries could apparently significantly shape the percentages).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"...it may be acceptable to..." and "...it is absolutely required to..." are two completely different things. In addition, if politifact says that they have checked a representative sample of a candidate's claims, then you'd need a reliable source to dispute this, not your own misgivings about whether it's true or not. We don't use WP:OR to pick and choose which statements by a reliable source are actually reliable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:MjolnirPants, I'm hitting the road now for a long drive, but wanted to reply briefly first. You wrote, "if politifact says that they have checked a representative sample of a candidate's claims...." Has Politifact said that? Or have they said that they checked claims that unnamed people asked them about? Or that they only checked claims that looked doubtful at first blush? Or that they checked a broad sample of Clinton's claims as compared to a narrower sample for Trump that only included Trump claims that looked very doubtful at first blush? How the heck did Politifact choose claims to fact check???Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That's why I said "if". If politifact doesn't give any information on how they choose claims for fact checking, then it would take a different source compiling statistics about how many claims they fact check for us to make any statement on the overall honesty of a candidate. If however (as I believe to be the case, but haven't confirmed), politifact says that they fact claim claims based on how notable the claims are (which means how much media coverage the claim gets in the hours and days immediately after it's made), then it's neither synth nor OR for us to say that their results are representative, because the overall honesty of a politician is going to be based on notable claims they make. The other, final option is that they fact check claims based on reader submissions (which may well be the case) and their own judgement as to what 'deserves' to be fact checked. In that case, we can't report an overall judgement unless the fact checking source gives one. In the case that they do provide an overall judgement of a candidate's honesty, then it is our trust in them as reliable which we lean on to determine whether or not to use that. Since it's pretty much universally felt to be a reliable source here at WP, the onus would be on those asserting unreliability. Again, however, that last clause is only the case if the fact checkers themselves make claims about the overall honesty of the candidates, which I don't think too many of them do. In other words:

• If the fact checking sites make claims about the overall honesty of the candidates, and we hold them to be a reliable source, then we should report those claims. We should, however put them in the source's voice instead of wiki voice.
• Alternatively, if the fact checking sites say that 1: they check a representative sample of claims; and 2: that candidate X has more false and fewer true ratings than candidate Y*, it is not synthesis of original information for us to report that candidate X is less honest than candidate Y, because we're not producing a result that is not verifiable from the source. This can be put into wiki voice, I suppose, though I would not prefer it.

*Note that a table showing the number of fact checked claims for each candidate is functionally and logically a claim by the fact checking source that candidate X has more false and fewer true claims than candidate Y, assuming the table demonstrates this. The claim shouldn't need to be made explicitly.

Otherwise, we should not make claims about a candidate's overall honesty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, Politifact says, "We get asked all the time how the candidates compare. We often fret the question because we don’t fact-check every claim a politician makes (we’d never sleep), and we may fact-check a statement multiple times if candidates keep repeating themselves." This is strong evidence, it seems to me, that the percentages are subjective and incorporate opinions abut which claims should be fact-checked. It's a red flag that not even Politifact considers these percentages particularly reliable, in contrast to their analyses of a particular statement by a candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Given the statement on that page, I tend to agree that using politifact to make blanket statements about a candidates overall honesty in wikivoice should not be done. I'm still not opposed to doing so in source voice, per WP:BIASED. But we should be careful, using direct quotes and careful attribution. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, do you agree that the formulation of these percentages involve a substantial amount of opinion? WP:OR says that opinion is primary source material. And WP:BLPPRIMARY seems to say (or at least strongly suggests) that we would therefore need the percentages to be reported in a secondary source to be used in a BLP. Why do you think inline attribution is enough without any report by some secondary source other than Politifact? Even without WP:OR and without WP:BLPPRIMARY, it seems to May that reporting in a separate secondary source would be needed to indicate that the percentages are sufficiently noteworthy for our purposes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What I'm talking about with respect to including any claims they make about a candidate's overall honesty is this: Politifact is notable and highly reliable. Politifact says claim X is false. Since Politifact is highly reliable, we can say "claim X is false." but politifact says "Candidate Y is dishonest." However, we have reason to doubt their conclusions, so their reliability for this claim isn't strong. However, they are still notable. The fact that Politifact said "Candidate Y is dishonest" is important to presenting a neutral, complete depiction of Candidate Y. So again, as long as it's very clearly attributed to Politifact, we should include it. Even if it's untrue, it's still worth noting that they said it. Failure to note it is equivilent to saying we can't mention many of Trump's claims which have been fact checked, because they're false. Well, we're not mentioning them because they're true, we're mentioning them because their notable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, Politifact says "we don’t fact-check every claim" and they could easily raise a candidate's percentage of falsehood by simply not checking claims that sound somewhat plausible at first blush. I believe that the Politifact percentages therefore involve opinion. Loads and loads of editorials and opinion-pieces in newspapers and magazines have said very negative things about Trump, and the best way for us to pick and choose which ones to mention is to follow WP:BLPPRIMARY, which seems to advise extreme caution and only use opinion pieces that are sufficiently noteworthy to be reported by secondary sources such as news articles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in BLPPRIMARY that would exclude the reporting of notable opinions. Notably, the section is titled "Avoid misuse of primary sources" (em added), and begins with "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources". I'm not seeing how anything I've suggested is not using extreme caution, and it's certainly not a misuse of primary sources to report what that source says. Furthermore, in this case (Trump), such opinions have been reported on by secondary sources. So I'm really not seeing a good argument for excluding such opinions (and I don't deny they are opinions, all things considered) here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source...." I don't see how this could mean anything but that a secondary source is needed in order to rely on a primary source within a BLP. The two questions at the start of this talk page section did not mention any secondary source, and I think the sources mentioned at the start of this section are not reliable without a secondary source, regarding opinions about a BLP subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

PolitiFact isn't a primary source. Full stop. Nor does WP:OR apply to material in reliable sources such as PolitiFact; it applies only to novel interpretations generated by Misplaced Pages editors. These policy objections are so obviously off-base that their continued repetition here is becoming disruptive. MastCell  19:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless repeated in other media, yes, it certainly can be considered to be a primary source. Full stop. The comment you are responding to does not mention OR either. Arkon (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Arkon. And I do think WP:OR is relevant here. It says that "editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces" are primary sources for purposes of the OR policy. I don't see any exemption for editorials and columns that are printed in the New York Times or the like. So the question is whether editorials and columns are also primary sources for purposes of WP:BLP. The answer is clearly "yes" because WP:BLP very prominently links to WP:PRIMARY which is part of WP:OR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you believe we should abide by the policy at WP:OR, which opens its section on primary sources with Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Since that's exactly what I suggested, can we then agree that it's okay to cite them, so long as we are very careful to attribute it properly? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Per my comment above, "BLPPRIMARY says 'Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source....' I don't see how this could mean anything but that a secondary source is needed in order to rely on a primary source within a BLP." Moreover, the footnote to this part of WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Claiming in the BLP lead that Trump is often false...that's an exceptional claim. So is saying in the article body that x% of his utterances are false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

"Anythingyouwant, you may call me handsome if you write it on paper and post a photo of that paper." Does the preceding sentence mean that you may not call me handsome if you simply type it here? No. Simply because the policy says that primary sources may be used under a given set of circumstances does not meant that they may not be used under others. Before you ask "then why would the policy highlight those particular circumstances, if not to set them apart?" let me say that those particular circumstances are ones where many editors would start crying WP:SYNTH" as soon as someone did it. It's not synth, but it really looks like synth if you say "so-and-so said X and Z, and whatsername said Y about X, without addressing so-and-so's additional mention of Z." then source that to so-and-so saying X and Z in one source, and whatsername saying Y in another. So I would say the policy highlights those particular circumstances because those are circumstances under which the rest of the policy isn't entirely clear.

Regarding the extraordinary sources part of your comment (which conflicted with my edit, grrr), I should direct you to the overwhelming consensus here in this very section. I dare say we have an extraordinary source for this claim. Besides which, the wikitext would be "Politifact says so-and-so is a liar", sourced to politifact saying that so-and-so is a liar. That's about as clear-cut an example of verifiability as it gets. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, I'm sure that you are very handsome.  :-) But, the meaning of this part of WP:BLPPRIMARY has been discussed many times in many places, and the predominant conclusion has been that attribution is not enough to cite primary sources in BLPs. Otherwise, we could troll through court records and the like to find little nuggets that we like. For starters, here are links to a couple prior discussions at this noticeboard, and at BLPN: Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you for saying so, and I appreciate the interactive proof of my argument. :) I'm afraid, however, that neither of those two discussions addresses this question. The first link is specifically about making claims in Wiki voice, and the second pertains to court documents, a form of WP:SPS. We're not talking about SPSs, nor saying anything in Wiki voice. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No Arkon, PolitiFact is not a primary source, not today; not tomorrow; not ever. Their work is cited in other sources, but that doesn't matter anyway. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Not only that, PolitiFact cites other sources. Another way to know that PolitiFact is not a primary source, is the fact that their fact checks specifically cite other sources.- MrX 22:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying, User:MrX, that Politfact never does what the New York Times does, which is to publish or express opinion (the NYT publishes op-ed columns as well as editorials)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant Is that a trick question? The scope of this discussion is PolitiFact's fact checking, an activity that is intrinsic to journalism. Fact checks are not in the same realm as opinion columns at all.- MrX 22:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MrX, no, of course it's not a trick question. You made a categorical statement that PolitiFact is not a primary source "not ever". That would be unusual for mainstream publications, most of which have a division between factual news reporting (which is a secondary source) versus opinion (which is a primary source). I agree with you that PolitiFact does a great deal of valuable and accurate reporting, in which case it's a reliable source. But I do believe they also sometimes mix in opinion, which is subject to WP:BLPPRIMARY. So my question stands: Politfact never does what the New York Times does, which is to publish or express opinion (the NYT publishes op-ed columns as well as editorials)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

From the source: "PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others who speak up in American politics." Why in the world would a website called PolitiFact publish opinion pieces? - MrX 23:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Answer: For the same reason that some people insert their opinions into the Misplaced Pages. Any source known to publish purely objective truth would soon develop a powerful credibility with its audience. Credibility is the primary requirement for the dissemination of opinion. Opinions can have consequences, and can be highly profitably to the source. Conversely, objective truth is only moderately profitable to the publisher. Among human beings, the temptation to inject opinion into objective sources is usually overwhelming. No newspaper or other news organ has been able to resist. Professors and textbook publishers are notorious. And most people cannot even distinguish between their own opinions and objective truth. Grammar's Li'l Helper 23:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MrX, fact-checking organizations like Politifact often inject opinion in how they interpret what Trump means. Trump often does not speak with crystal clarity, and fact-checking organizations will often attribute to him the most outlandish possible meaning, and then fact-check that meaning. This phenomenon is discussed by University of Wisconsin School of Journalism Professor Lucas Graves, author of a new book titled "Deciding What’s True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism." You can hear him talk about it in this August 10 interview starting at 50:30. I'd be glad to give you particular examples of this phenomenon, but it's better you should hear it from a source like Lucas Graves than from me. And Politifact articles can likewise use opinionated language; consider the Politifact article by Angie Holan titled "2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump". The bare concept of a "lie of the year" is opinion rather than objective fact, and she likewise writes: "Donald Trump doesn’t let facts slow him down. Bending the truth or being unhampered by accuracy is a strategy he has followed for years....when challenged, he offers flimsy explanations and suggests he shouldn’t be held accountable -- or simply insists he’s right." So, yes, there is lots of opinion involved in the PolitiFact fact-checking.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

When a highly reputable fact-checking organization (like PolitiFact) finds that a Presidential candidate is so exceptionally untruthful, and outright disdainful of the idea of truthfulness, that is notable. Yes, it's a subjective judgement, which is why it needs to be attributed (per WP:RSOPINION). I see what you're trying to do, but you're actually making a point opposite to the one intended. By emphasizing that PolitiFact has called out the unique and exceptional nature of Trump's dishonesty, you're making the case that it deserves mention, per our basic responsibility to follow high-quality sources and report their findings. MastCell  17:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I emphatically agree that the opinion of fact-checkers warrant mention with attribution, via reliable secondary sourcing, in the body of the Trump BLP, and I think that I have led the way in that regard. The material now in the article body is generally nuanced and well-sourced, as it should be.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. Politifact is a reliable source (really, it's not even a close call). As far as subjective judgements (for instance, that Trump is a uniquely untruthful politician), those can be expressed so long as they are relevant to the article in question and so long as in-text attribution is provided (see WP:RSOPINION). This is pretty basic, and the fact that it requires a trip to WP:RS/N to affirm (much less the fact that some experienced editors don't seem to understand it) speaks poorly to the editing environment at the articles in question. MastCell  04:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, but Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements tries to push editorial freedom too far. A source can be reliable for certain statements, but the RfC proposal that many of Trump's statements have been false goes too far. Stuff like that has to be attributed (it does not seem to be in RfC), and is undue in the lead of a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Yes for 1, No for 2. PF is not a statistical sample of someone's public statements, and should not be used to try to paint an overall picture of someone's overall "truthiness". TimothyJosephWood 18:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Snow yes for 1, It depends Yes but for 2. PolitiFact is one of the most reliable politics sources out there. It is cited approvingly by just about every major news outlet. If PolitiFact says something we can generally treat it as gospel. As for #2 however, I'm not aware of any PolitiFact source saying what MrX is proposing, but I suppose it's possible. Certainly PolitiFact has published articles about the number of false statements by a politician, or using the word "many," but that's a far cry from giving a percentage of all statements the politician has ever uttered. As for #2, sure that kind of a percentage would be reliably sourced, but moving beyond verifiability, how useful would it be? PolitiFact exercises a lot of editorial discretion in deciding which statements to fact check. I think they usually consider how high-profile, controversial, or suspicious-sounding the statements. A percentage of a denominator like that says as much about PolitiFact as it does about the politician. There might be a place for this information but I can't think of where. I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you'd like my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and no, per Anythingyouwant, CFredkin and TimothyJosephWood. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alert
Compare with the RSN entry of 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC):

"You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Prior discussion involved the reliability of the proposed sources."

One of the two proposed sources whose reliability was disputed is a PolitiFact piece. There is no consensus that the source can be used to support contentious material in a BLP. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you really claiming that some consensus of which no-one but you seems to be aware somehow overrides a massive (and still growing) consensus here? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: To the contrary, I'm alerting editors to the lack of consensus in a related discussion started by a question that was posted here less than three days ago. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So you're alerting people who have taken part in a discussion that extremely rapidly produced an almost overwhelming consensus that there's still no consensus? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants - he's advising other editors more fully. That may lead them to reconsider their opinions as being based on bad WP:RSCONTEXT. That this thread was started immediately after the RFC at the other article makes this thread look suspect of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Witholding or opposing the info about the other RFC does not help such suspicions. Markbassett (talk)

It wasn't started "immediately" after the RfC, unless your definition of immediately is three days. What other RfC? There's only one that I'm aware of.- MrX 12:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Advising them of what? He seems to be 'advising' them that their voices don't count because one or two people disagree. But that's not how consensus works. The reasons those few don't agree have been addressed already by pointing out that the 'evidence' of these sites' unreliability is simply a handful of opinions. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

*Probably not. I googled "politifact bias" and the results are somewhat troubling. Here is an image briefly summarizing my concerns. They appear to editorialize "facts" and cherry pick scenarios which doesn't fly for me. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• • You're citing an anonymous Internet meme from Imgur.com in support of your conclusion? That's very creative, but makes no sense whatsoever. Neutrality 01:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If a meme can be used as an argument, can I use one as my rebuttal? Graham (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I didnt know it was a meme as it was the first response on my google search. Is it accurate? Regardless I'll strike my vote. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Accurate? It simply shows a bunch of (carefully chosen to create the impression of a bias) examples of fact checking and sarcastically claims a bias (note there are no citations or evidence presented to support the text at the top of the two columns, so that text is really nothing but the claim of a bias itself). Even the examples shown don't fit the claim. How can Ted Cruz be "off by 1%" in the claim listed at the top of the (ironically) left column? No, while the web is full of charges of a liberal bias against the fact checkers, there's precious little in the way of evidence. I did read one well-written (if not well thought-out) piece on one of the bigger news sites once, but even then, the only evidence they presented was crunching the numbers and showing that conservative politicians get worse ratings than liberal politicians by some of the fact checking sites. The author tried to imply that they fact-checked the conservatives way more often, but only showed like a 5% difference. I believe the classic response is "Reality has a well known liberal bias." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• With caution When Politifact says the candidate said x and the truth is y, then that is reliable. But there is judgment included in their coverage too - what statements to list and how egregious they rate each discrepancy. This becomes a particular issue when their findings are summarized: "We checked 10 statements by candidate A and found 8 to be true, while for candidate B we found only 2 to be true." So Politifact's summaries show that Clinton is more honest than Sanders. TFD (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• No and No. The Wall Street Journal says "PolitiFact ... has marketed itself to ... news organizations on the pretense of impartiality." ("Politifiction: True 'Lies' about Obamacare".) And the Journal is the most trusted newspaper in America. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dervorguilla that's an opinion piece from the WSJ, not a news article. The "most trusted" study you linked to was about who Americans trust for news, not opinion. And it wasn't the "most trusted" paper, it was just more trusted than not by people in different ideological groups. Overall, however, the graph shows the USA Today has more trust than WSJ.Depauldem (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. It also doesn't make a declaration that PolitiFact is generally unreliable. It merely opines that it disagrees with PolitiFact's view that Obama Care is not a government takeover. - MrX 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Depauldem: See the Pew studies. 1. "The Economist, BBC, ... and The Wall Street Journal are among those with the highest ratio of trust to distrust ." 2. "The average consumer of the Wall Street Journal sits very close to the typical survey respondent, but the range of Journal readers is far broader because it appeals to people on both the left and the right." So the Journal's editorial board may be far less "liberal or conservative" than the average board -- and thus more trustworthy. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

WSJ news is generally reliable. WSJ Opinion, not covered by that survey, is another beast entirely; their "editorial board" (James Taranto basically is the editorial board) is firmly planted on the conservative side of the field. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is now publicized at PolitiFact.com Talk. I rephrased the questions per core policies and for accuracy and readability:

"1. Is the PolitiFact subsidiary of the Tampa Bay Times a reliable third-party source for material about the truthfulness of statements made by a candidate?"

"2. Is it a reliable third-party source for material about the ratio of false statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to true statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact?"

For more on PolitiFact, see this old version of the article. (It's somewhat more concise than the current version.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That link contains NPOV policy violations which don't appear in the present version: PolitiFact.com. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• No the sources shown are not a RS for the statement.

• WP:RSCONTEXT - the statement is an unqualified broad judgement, put at the lead of BLP. These sources are not a source of encyclopedic review of sources that would support such a claim, nor are they posing as such, they are each a single secondary source of editorial opinion. Per WP:NEWSORG. an editorial article is suitable as one of a range of views, but not as an unqualified summary of fact.
• WP:BIASED, Politifact and Factcheck have both been mentioned as somewhat biased by quick google check. (USnews, Forbes, WSJ, National review, Salon). A bit from being slightly left-of-center sources, but more so from a systematic bias of what they choose to examine and that they structurally are a simplistic scoring, not something that looks for interpretations or what the person meant. A joke or hyperbole -- gets scored as 'false', even if reasonalb e people would not take it seriously.
• WP:RS, in particular for WP:BLP cautions about offensive words like 'false'. This has not approached the level of satisfying that.
• Look, bottom line there is no way suc an edit isn't going to be read as WP:BIASED and WP:ADVOCATE. For the sake of WP:CREDIBILITY just reject blanket judgement statements being proposed. We don't need to really look at whether the policy is evenly handled with other candidates or shown as just their opinion -- it's inappropriate to be going here with any candidate.

Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but PolitiFact is widely-cited by other reputable publications. PolitiFact lists sources for each of their determinations and each is reviewed by a three editor panel before being published. I notice that you haven't provided any evidence that "Politifact and Factcheck have both been mentioned as somewhat biased" so I assume there is none. - MrX 12:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Markbassett, I think you're misreading those policies and guidelines. WP:BIASED says that the bias of a source does not disqualify it--not the other way around. And WP:BLP (specifically, WP:PUBLICFIGURE) says that verifiable facts about public figures should be included even if they're negative or disliked--not the other way around. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes and (weak) Yes - They have the required reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required by our Reliable Source policies. The arguments about bias are unpersuasive, since the accusations of bias have come from both ends of the political spectrum. Some Misplaced Pages editors also seem to forget that WP:RS says: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources... Use of PolitiFact in case (2) should be with attribution and additional care. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• 1. Yes (with attribution) 2. No – No clue on methodology to pick which statements get fact-checked. Also potential bias towards checking "popular" controversial soundbites vs checking the totality of a speech. — JFG 11:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I have a simple question. Is this the main reference we are using to say that some of his speeches contain half-truths? If it is, I don't think this should be used. Also, in fairness, have they fact-checked Clinton's speeches? I am only asking because "Hillary pinocchio" has many matches on Google, and that connotation seems to have become a campaign issue, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, the scope of this query is clearly articulated at the top of this section. It's about Trump's false statements. (No idea what a half-truth is.) Yes, PolitiFact has fact checked Clinton's statements, some of which are probably in her speeches. Why is that you can hijack nearly every discussion with this Hillary pinocchio and Hillary coughing nonsense, but you can't be bothered to go to PolitiFact.com to get the answer you seek? This tendentiousness and trolling is sure getting disruptive. No more good faith for you!- MrX 13:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please assume good faith. It looks like PolitiFact.com is a project of the Tampa Bay Times, which is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, whose president is Tim Franklin. Has he made any political endorsements or contributions?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we would need to double-check their board of trustees.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That's actually beside the point. "Reliability" and "bias" are two different things. The only question that matters is "do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" (WP:RS)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

And if we have to ask if they are reliable, that means they are probably not sufficiently reputable. Otherwise we wouldn't even question it.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

And if we have to question Trump's honesty, that means he is probably dishonest. If we have to question whether WP:BLP applies, that means it probably doesn't. If we have to question your intelligence, that means you're probably not very intelligent*. Do you see the fundamental problem with this line of reasoning?

*(That is a purely rhetorical device, I'm not saying you are not intelligent, merely picking an example most likely to illustrate the utter inapplicability of that logic.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes although of course there might be some instances where additional sources would be useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes They make occasional mistakes or use incorrect wording in their conclusions but don't we all. Gaas99 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes and Yes - I don't know of a source that would survive the tests applied to PolitiFact by some in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes and wrong question. Politifact is not a reliable source for the number of true or false statements that a candidate has made. They do not even claim to be a reliable source of this. However, Politifact is a reliable source for the number of true or false statements rated by Politifact. However, on the latter question, Politifact is a primary source, so not really usable. Some news/opinion articles, which are secondary sources, have mentioned the Politifact statistics. I see nothing wrong with citing those statistics, and referencing Politifact (or the appropriate wayback machine archive), but using such opinion content as a secondary source requires a careful consideration of policies other than the WP:RS guideline, such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per all of the above. --Taivo (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• yes to both, based on the content provided in the blue boxes, which is attributed. for the second one, the content in the blue box notes "of the statements checked" which is essential - I would have said "no" to the second one otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I have requested a formal close on this. Neutrality 20:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Commenting to prevent automatic archival pending close. Neutrality 05:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Commenting again to prevent automatic archival before closure. Neutrality 18:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, Politifact is most definitely a reliable source. GAB 22:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Sometimes and No: it's not above influence or bias. And if this is stemming from trying to edit Trump pages about his claims, we are heading towards a POV. There's a long history of biased editing on his pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes but and No. Yes but they are always right so if another source disagrees then we should treat it as such. No for the second because it's based on the number of claims they have elected to check, not total claims made, ratio of claims checked vs made etc. Springee (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Can article titles be used as sources?

At Whole30, this diet is being described as a "fad diet" in the first sentence based on two sources: a listicle in Health, and an article in Business Insider. Neither source refers to the Whole30 as a fad diet in the article itself. The subtitle of the Health listicle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements." The title of the Business Insider article is "Millennials are obsessed with Whole 30, the ‘cultish’ fad diet taking over Instagram and Pinterest." Is there any precedent for using article titles in this way? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This mispresents the situation.. The OP who created the article - see this piece of PROMO editing and compare with current version after i fleshed out the article from the sources that were already there (with one exception that i added) - and actually has the chutzpah to even raise the issue of "NPOV" - is

a) claiming this is not a fad diet when every source used describes its marketing "package" and its kooky food exclusions that are not good for you (the definition of fad diet) and

b) is demanding the exact phrase "fad diet" be used in a source.

Well, even with that demand (which is not supportable by policy) the phrase is used in the title of one article (that goes on at some length describing how it is a fad diet) and it is used in the subtitle of another - the one that calls this one of the worst diets of 2013. This is some pretty serious wikilawyering going on here

here is another ref, that is by a nutritionist and stronger than this bloggy ref used by the OP already. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the source you've added, which appears to be a nutritionist's personal Word Press site, meets WP:RS standards either. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

another from U Penn's Health and Wellness blog. comes out and calls it a "fad diet" too. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that WP:PARITY is at play here. There are zero mentions of this in standard sources about health. no mentions at NHS Choices. No mentions at the NIH, anywhere. no mentions at pubmed. We are out in fringe-y land, so things like a blog from University of Pennsylvania's med school and the blog from the dietician are very much at play here. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That source says "Develop a weight loss plan that works for you. Make an appointment with one of our primary care physicians and get the support you need for success." It is an advertisement for the University of Pennsylvania medical center. It mentions Whole30 once, here: "It seems like every month, there’s a new 'AMAZING' diet plan. Whole30, The 21 Day Fix, Teatox—the list goes on and on." That's a highly WP:TRIVIALMENTION that doesn't go into any depth about whether or not the Whole30 is a fad diet. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Safehaven86 as I mentioned both the dietician blog and the UPenn blog are much stronger than this bloggy ref that you used. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• note, cross posted at Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Whole30 Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously a fad diet and there are sources that point this obvious fact out. Misplaced Pages needs to say so too per WP:PSCI. Fringe stuff must be clearly identified as such. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That's why I've started this thread--to try to establish the appropriate sourcing in this circumstance. Could you please share with me the sourcing you think is strongest? Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Since it's obvious, pretty much anything will do. What's in the article currently is more than adequate. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This whole obvious thing is a problem. It's very I know it when I see it. I don't think "it's obvious" makes the cut in Misplaced Pages policy because editors are explicitly not experts and our opinions don't matter, and in fact are prohibited by WP:OR. We need sources to ascertain facts and judgments. Personal reckonings about content are not admissible. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To the general case, never assume the title or subtitles of an article are reliable regardless of source. They are usually written by different editors trying to capture a reader's attention and may skew the truth. If the fact in a title is not repeated in the source, it shouldn't be included on WP in the prose (though obviously within the reference text its needed). --MASEM (t) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, Massem. The framing of this as "supported only by the title" is false. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, in this case, plenty of RS prose sources support the fact of "fad diet". Just that the general line that article titles alone should not be considered a reliable piece of information. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

On the specific question made at the start - no, they cannot. I recall this issue being discussed a while ago (sorry, can't provide the actual link). It was pointed out that article titles and book titles, and especially tagline subtitles below the main title, are often not decided on by the author of the article, but are derived from an editorial or layout decision and are designed to be eye catching. If there is no actual content in the article or book reproducing the terms or claims used in the title, then these sources should not be cited as sources using those terms or containing those claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

But isn't it verifiable - which WP supports above the truth? DrChrissy 16:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The question is about verifiability, and it's whether if a category or label is used only in a title or subtitle, is that enough to be a strong source for that label or category? I think it would depend on specifics, and on a clear and unbiased reading, but generally if a source really means to categorize something, it will do so in the main text as well as in the title. If that's lacking, that is an indication that the source is not very strong for the claim and seems more like grasping at straws or running on fumes, not a solid sourcing. SageRad (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that, SageRad. Since everyone here seems to be in agreement that article titles and subtitles aren't WP:RS, I was confused by this edit summary, which says "it is in the freaking title of one of the sources, for pete's sake." My point is that if the Whole30 has been reliably classified as a "fad diet", we should be able to come by better sources than a nutritionist's personal blog, an advertising blog post from a medical clinic, and subtitles of articles. Also agree that the whole "it's obvious because it's obvious" argument isn't helpful. It's clearly not obvious to everyone, hence the discussion. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I also agree. My question above was rather tongue-in-cheek. I think the problem comes when science articles/subjects are reported by popular-science magazines. In my experience, editors do not change the titles of primary research articles, but they may do for journals such as Science or Nature where printing space is more of a concern. DrChrissy 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Do you see sources that you think meet the WP:RS criteria for describing this diet as a fad diet? Safehaven86 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If that question is directed at me, I'm afraid I am unable to answer this. Others might be able to help. DrChrissy 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there may well be an emerging consensus to classify the Whole 30 as a fad diet, and if so, that's fine. But removing the dispute tag seems premature. An ongoing discussion is currently taking place. There is no deadline. It's frankly a bit disconcerting that editors who don't apparently immediately fall into line behind the self-apppointed Guardians of The Science are assumed to be promotional, unserious, etc. There should certainly be room for discussion among good-faith editors. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There should be space and time for good-faith discussion. SageRad (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Fad diet. Next. But to answer the question in the title, a source title *by itself* would not necessarily be used to source a statement of fact. When the source title states 'Its a fad diet' and the source goes on to explain why its a fad diet. Its a fad diet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That argument actually makes sense, though it wasn't the one made to me when I was sworn at in an edit summary. That argument was that "fad" was in the article title, so it was sourced. I think the old adage goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with douchebaggery." Safehaven86 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The first thing I wrote to you on the Talk page, here, was "The content in the body of that article fully supports the label in the title. One doesn't need a quotation for support; we summarize sources in WP." Glad you are finally hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Headlines in newspapers are written by headline writers whose primary task is to hook readers, As a result, headlines tend to overstate the "interesting bits" of any article, as readers of the Daily Mail can attest, or even readers of The Guardian. Better to find how the "interesting bit" is actually worded in the article than to give credence to the puffed headline. If "fad diet" is in the body of an article as fact, fine. If not, not. Collect (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Savage shutdown

Is the following content reliably sourced? Other issues under policy?

On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease.

References

1. "EXCLUSIVE – Michael Savage Reacts to Being Pulled From Radio Following Hillary Health Segment: 'Pure Sabotage'". Breitbart. Retrieved 28 September 2018.
2. "Michael Savage Cut From Airwaves For Controversial Hillary Statements'". Western Journalism. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
3. "Michael Savage is censored during LIVE show after questioning Hillary's health. Censorship is alive and well in America'". Catholic Online. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
4. "Michael Savage Shut Down From Radio Nationwide For Discussing Hillary Clinton Health'". Morning News USA. Retrieved 29 September 2018.

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• No.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Individual stations may have pulled the plug, but that is not the same as a "nationwide shutdown" at all. Collect (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think any of those are very reliable. Breitbart ran the story first, and all the rest are just re-writes citing that, except for the Catholic Online one, which claims to be news (according to the URL), but rants about censorship and includes such blatantly obvious opinion statements as "Obviously, Savage was sabotaged." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. None of these are reliable in the slightest. Neutrality 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• No - Rewriting Breitbart doesn't make Breitbart-sourced content reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• No - See Snopes. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone written up something referenceable on the problem with Forbes blogs?

I can't find anything handily linkable on the problem with sourcing to Forbes - specifically, that they decided to trash their brand by running third-party blogs written by any old blogger under the "Forbes" brandname - they check the blogger is lucid first, but once they're in the stuff is just blog posts. People still can't quite believe that they actually do this and these are just blogs, not editorially-reviewed RSes, and I keep having to point this out. It really doesn't help that they put staff and print articles under forbes.com/blogs too.

(I can't find it now, but I remember an enlightening article from a freelancer who used to contribute to Forbes under her own name, but now makes ten times that ghosting corporate puff pieces that run on a Forbes blog URL.)

The approach I've tended to take is that anything under forbes.com/sites is just a blog, unless it specifically says "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" (in which case it's Forbes as RS), and if the blogger is notable in the subject area it may be an RS blog.

Am I off base here? How do others approach the Forbes problem? - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Great question. I think it really depends on the individual writer, which means it takes some user discretion on our part. There is obviously some less-than-quality Forbes writing on their current platform, but there is also some stuff that would qualify at the level of print journalism. Perhaps just taking a case-by-case approach is best, and this absolutely requires appropriate community discussion of any problem sources. Delta13C (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem I find is when people bring up a blatantly promotional blog post as an RS or evidence of notability, and trying to get across that really, Forbes really is mixing in unedited blogs with its RS coveraage - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a few Forbes "contributors" that we at the VG project recognize as reasonably authoritative for their opinion when they post via Forbes, but that we avoid for facts because the pieces are not guaranteed to be reviewed and checked by an editor. Its not that they necessary include bad info, just that usually we can find this from sources we know do have fact checking. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NEWSORG covers this. Even reputable organisations publish opinion pieces, which is what these 'blogs' essentially are, and these are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinion of the author. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. There's a Columbia Journalism Review article about the issue here. Pertinent quote: Around 250 to 300 stories go up on the forbes site each day. ... No matter their background or compensation, all contributors can publish their own work without so much as a cursory edit. So as long as you have a contributor account, you can write whatever you want in your Forbes blog and it doesn't get edited or fact-checked before publication, which means it pretty clearly fails WP:RS standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• The Poynter Institute has written about it as well. It's a content farm and should be treated as WP:UGC. Usable only if the the writer is a recognised expert in the field, or for the authors opinion (assuming it's not giving it undue weight.) — Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do not completely agree with your characterization. According to the link you posted describing how the Forbes system works, it is clear that there still is a editorial system--one that is not traditionally implemented. Contributors are vetted: “We look at their experience, we look at their credentials and what they’ve done. And we turn many people away.” Also, Forbes editors will review and check content after it is published, and especially if it has been getting more attention, and readers have been known to facilitate fact-checking. Delta13C (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because they screen their freelancers doesn't mean they're exercising editorial control, and there is no indication on their criteria and how stringent they are. We can't rely on post-hoc fact checking of only articles that get attention, there is no indication that any particular article has actually been fact-checked, and it doesn't instil confidence that readers are the ones finding the errors. — Strongjam (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per Strongjam and Masem. There are many good writers there who are experts in their field and have been published previously by other organisations, but apart from the base vetting, Forbes does not fact-check or exercise editorial control over content. Its not a newsblog, its essentially a content farm where the writes undergo an initial check. Its entirely down to the writer concerned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• it depends. Matt Herper is one of the most informed and smartest commentators on biotech in the world. His Forbes pieces are very solid for facts and his opinion about things is relevant. (see here for example - he is up there with Andrew Pollack of the NYT) He is a senior editor there; maybe we can draw a distinction based on their title at Forbes. Per the CJR piece linked above, Forbest has 125 editorial staff, 1,400 contributors. and 250‑300 posts per day Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC) (stupid me Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC))
  • He's staff, and Forbes' staff writings, unless specifically called out as editorial, should be taken as RSes as their print magazine would. I believe we're focused on this section on Forbes contributors (eg labelled as such: ) which do not enjoy editorial oversight per what CJR has reported. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to have read my post at the start of this section, answering these precise issues: he's "Forbes Staff", therefore not just another Forbes blogger, that being the issue at hand - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You are both correct. My apologies for not reading carefully and wasting your time. Struck and issuing a new comment below. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• support exact proposal by OP - articles by Forbes staff are RS; blog postings by contributors must be treated as WP:SPS. Dead on. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Forbes/sites is patent WP:SPS stuff. Even if the article is by a "Forbes staff" it is essentially content without any editorial control. These sources should never be used for notability regardless of who the writer is. For verification purposes, I will still be sceptical, unless the author is an indisputable expert in the field. Actually, the model they rely on is "publish first, retract/correct later if required". Quite a few of these Forbes contributions actually do contain mistakes which are not corrected. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A master thesis

The reliability of this source is doubted on the talk page of Talk:Battle of Karbala. Can it be used?

• Elbadri, Rachid (March 2009). Shia Rituals: The Impact Of Shia Rituals On Shia Socio-Political Character (PDF) (Thesis). Naval Postgraduate School.

Thanks. --Mhhossein 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what its for. Per the instructions at the top of this page, please provide the content you want to source from it. It would be helpful to understand why you want to use a weak source like this too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:The source is used to say that "the Battle of Karbala took place within the crisis environment resulting from the succession of Yazid I," a saying which is in accordance with stronger sources such as this one. --Mhhossein 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the detail and the link to the Talk discussion. It seems that you are trying to make an argument that the Second Fitna started with the succession of Yazid. If the Second Fitna article is accurate and mainstream historians are indeed divided as to when the Second Fitna started, then Misplaced Pages has to reflect that. Per WP:NOT, Misplaced Pages articles summarize accepted knowledge. As editors, we find accepted knowledge in strong sources. If strong sources say different things, then Misplaced Pages has to reflect that. Please don't try to make things more certain in Misplaced Pages than they are in strong sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I think there's a consensus among the sources that the Second Fitna started with the succession of Yazid. However, my emphasis was on the word "crisis". This world is used by the strong source, too. Can we use the thesis along with the stronger source while we know they're saying almost the same thing? --Mhhossein 04:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

i get it that by using "crisis" you want to claim that the second fitna started with the succession. that is far too much weight on one word, based on one source. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: No, this is what the brill source says. According to the strong source "Yazīd’s caliphate marked the beginning of the crisis, commonly referred to as fitna." So, this is not just my "claim". --Mhhossein 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Using stronger sources helps generate consensus; using weak sources generates arguments. The thesis is a weak source; there is no reason to use it if there is support in stronger sources. That's my view; others may think differently. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

tournamentsoftware.com

Does anyone know if bwf.tournamentsoftware.com is a reliable source? There are enarly 900 links, including things like this abomination: Claudia Rivero (how many links to one site can you get in an article?). Guy (Help!) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from their website, they provide literally no information about where they get their information, or how it is vetted for accuracy. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is UsaNews a reliable source?

I want to know if UsaNews is considered a reliable source...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorbeluzzo (talk • contribs)

Do you mean http://www.usnews.com/ ? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait... I get it: USA Today. Seems ok to me for ordinary events and entertainment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Courthouse News Service reliable?

Is Courthouse News Service a reliable source to cite regarding the lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein? I would like to get a consensus before making any more edits. 173.67.106.134 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it is a reliable source for what it produces (legal news in the U.S. state and federal courts). It bears the hallmarks of reliability: a track record (history dates back to the 1990s); editorial control, a professional staff, a separation between news and opinion. The about us page for the service is useful and reflects how it is described by others (the New York Times described it 11 years ago as "a national news wire for lawyers"). A published opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit describes it as "a national news organization that publishes daily reports for its subscribers about civil litigation, including the filing of new lawsuits." I would say that this source is a peer source to Bloomberg BNA — a reliable niche source for legal and professional news.

The use by other sources is pretty extensive, with citations by the AP, the New York Times (about ~15 or so unique citations, see example, example, example), and the Washington Post (about ~25 or 30 unique citations, see example, example, example).

Whether it's reliable, of course, is a separate question from whether a particular bit should be included or excluded as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Neutrality 04:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, it's reliable, but I'd take it to the article talk page first. IIRC that lawsuit was previously rejected from inclusion in Trump's page due to WP:WEIGHT. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the content you want to support with it and the specific piece from the news service you want to use - no one here can judge whether a source is reliable for any given statement until we see the statement with its source. (i don't know for example if they ever put out opinion pieces). As others have noted, UNDUE will come into play based on whether what it reports has been covered by more mainstream sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Chinese studies

Interesting commentary from Prof. Ernst on the problem with Chinese studies: http://edzardernst.com/2016/10/data-fabrication-in-china-is-an-open-secret/

A recent survey of clinical trials in China has revealed fraudulent practice on a massive scale, according to a government investigation.

China's food and drug regulator recently carried out a one-year review of clinical trials, concluding that more than 80 percent of clinical data is "fabricated," state media reported.

— Radio Free Asia

That was for reality-based drugs, the problem is worse for quackery. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Luckily, the Misplaced Pages community has been wisely skeptical of such sources - and in general that skepticism is properly reflected in our headline TCM articles - I wonder though how much of this research is lurking, cited, in our content mode widely. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wehrmacht reenactment web site used as source

I would appreciate additional attention to the article, where I was reverted twice due to the editor's insistence on using a Wehrmacht reenactment web site as a source for a citation. Please see: Talk:11th_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)#11thpanzer.com. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Luftwaffe.cz (fan site) used as source

I would appreciate another set of eyes on the article where an editor restored removed material stating that the web site is suitable to use as a source. Please see: Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper revelations and denials

This news article in Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports on a high-level meeting between civilian and military authorities. Then it adds a denial by the government, titled "Clarification". Do I understand the WP:RS correctly that we still go by the newspaper report, despite the denial? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on context. What material is it being used to source? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of important revelations that will affect several articles. For the time being, I was planning to use the content Addressing Gen Akhtar, the younger Sharif complained that whenever action has been taken against certain groups by civilian authorities, the security establishment has worked behind the scenes to set the arrested free. This would support a claim already made in the Jaish-e-Mohammed article (and contested) where an "unnamed official" was reported to have said similar things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Cyril Almeida (7 October 2016), "Exclusive: Act against militants or face international isolation, civilians tell military", Dawn, retrieved 7 October 2016

Online Business News Sources which use PR:Newswire - WP:PROMOTION concerns

In examining what seem to be extraordinary claims in a News of Science article cited in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination):

"2016 FEB 7 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at News of Science -- Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.

"This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they're completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope," stated Dr. …"

I found that almost identical reports of this extraordinary claim could be found on Business Television, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance, and YourNewsWire.com, among others. Should we consider these news outlets and the online business press reliable secondary sources of information after this? I ask because only the extraordinary nature of the claim made in these articles drew my attention to this issue. It's plausible that these and other business news outlets routinely add their bylines to whatever comes through PR Newswire and other online conduits for business press releases. This makes them potentially a routine WP:PRIMARY source of information.

is it plausible that an editor at CNN Money or Yahoo! Finance looked at that copy and decided to put their firm's byline on it? Either a "yes" or "no" answer to that points to a major problem with them and other business news sources that routinely use PR Newswire or other online conduits for corporate press releases as sources for information which they they byline locally to have it appear as though this is copy that's been written by a staff writer and reviewed by an editor. If there was editorial review on this story, it failed in what we'd think was a primary journalistic duty to report accurately, and pursue alternate sources of information on extraordinary or implausible claims made by companies on which they report.

I think there ought to be general guidance to editors in WP:RS to scrutinize claims made in the business press closely, or simply not to regard the online business press as an independent secondary source of information unless there is evidence that the specific article being cited differs enough from other articles on the same subject to show active authorship and editorial review at the site where the article is found. loupgarous (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

PR Newswire is by definition not reliable; and a regurgitation of content coming from PR Newswire echoed on some other website does not thus become reliable. These websites do not actually put their firms' byline on the content, but merely pass it on as interesting or amusing. You have to distinguish between the internet echo chamber function of websites, and the editorial content to which they lend their name and their prestige. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Press releases, however published, fall under the rules listed at WP:SELFPUBLISH. Self-published sources may be reliable under certain circumstances for information about the entity itself (see WP:ABOUTSELF) - usually for basic information (i.e., personnel changes, headquarters changes, the date that a new product came to market, etc.). One of the WP:ABOUTSELF limits is that the self-published source may not be used to support an "unduly self-serving" or "exceptional claim." Neutrality 01:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Has anyone noticed what all those websites have in common? They're all business news. This 'story' is a press release by Thunder Energies, a publicly traded company, and as such, it is reproduced without commentary or editing as a service to those seeking business news. In that sense, it is absolutely true that potential investors have every right to know what Thunder Energies claims to be about.

This is why it doesn't appear in any science news outlets. It's also worth noting that the purported publisher of the 'paper' making the claims outlined in this press release is a three-year-old journal owned by deceptive and predatory publisher. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

phys.org is infamous for doing this with science-based press releases. a bad bad thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. The reason I brought this up is that there's an ongoing controversy at WP:CHURNALISM over the legitimacy of denying news sources full credence as independent secondary sources because they're churnalism, and the editor who framed the objection to that asked for an essay on the subject (which I supplied, using the Thunder Energies announcement that they can see antimatter galaxies and "Invisible Terrestrial Entities", which was picked up by many online business news outlets - including, to their shame, CNN Money and Yahoo! Finance. I categorized this as 'laundering press releases' in that essay.

When a prima facie extraordinary or implausible claim can be made in a press release, then repeated in what look like independent secondary sources with bylines and statements (as in the original News of Science report I cited here) that a staff writer and/or editor was responsible for the article - then that source needs to be impeached for systematic dishonesty and placed on WP:Potentially unreliable sources.

I did that for PR Newswire and online news sources like it which reprint press releases verbatim. Editors should be alert in using sources in the business press, online or not, to the likelihood they're looking at a cut-and-paste from a press release, and treat the source accordingly. This shows that investors are probably routinely being sold stock in companies through the business press based on claims just as diaphanous as those made by Thunder Energies for their telescope. It might be worth a change to WP:RS as the reliability of the business press isn't specifically mentioned there. loupgarous (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I call these recycled press releases or lightly edited press releases and agree 100%. The key differentiator is whether the news agency does any independent reporting - brings something new to the table - or just, well, lightly edits the press release. Yes absolutely. We should consider adding something to RS about this. It is really a question of independence. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Including sources when they are not actually used to source anything

I don't know if this is the correct place to ask because it's not about the veracity of the source, but rather about whether a source should be used in a particular way.

Article: James Herbert

Source: Daily Express 5th Sept 2012: James Herbert: My new thriller about Princess Diana's secret son http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/344077/James-Herbert-My-new-thriller-about-Princess-Diana-s-secret-son

Edit:

Discussion:Talk:James_Herbert#Ash_citation

The question is about whether an individual book entry on a list should be accompanied by a citation on the basis "it is the last known interview with the world-renowned author and gives his own opinion on this, his final work." Well, fair enough, I don't have a problem with incorporating significant information into the article and citing the source (and this is indeed done at another place in the article with the same source) but that isn't what it is being used for here. Using the source in this particular way just supports the existence of the book, which is self-citing anyway and the author's entire ouvre is now supported by a citation to the British library. So the question is a very simple one: does the citation benefit the article in the way it is used in the linked edit above? Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing for books in a list is a separate matter than third-party documentation on the existence of those books. I have to agree here that citing the source in question when mentioning the book in question is not necessary, adds nothing to the article, and is potentially confusing to the reader. The publication data of the book itself are all the sourcing required. If the cited interview has information not presented elsewhere in the text, the editor who wishes to include that cite ought to consider whether that information (apart from that this was Herbert's last book, which is something you ought to get from the list of his books) meets the WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Also, see WP:Potentially unreliable sources for strong cautions about the particular publication in which this source appeared loupgarous (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Findagrave redux

The Findagrave guide says not to use it as a reference if "it is a circular reference to Misplaced Pages". However, a user is deleting all references to Findagrave and even deleting the cemetery information from the text because it is derived from Findagrave, even when the information comes from a photograph of the tombstone. See this change for example, and then see their user contributions where they have done the same to over 100 biographies. Should this be occurring? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to remove the citation if Findagrave has a photo of a famous, elaborate tomb such as you would find inside a cathedral. I'm not sure about ordinary tombstones in ordinary cemeteries. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case an external link might be appropriate, but not a citation. This has been discussed here on many occasions and consensus has been that it's not a reliable source. The page linked above explains some of the issues at play, which are not limited to only WP:CIRCULAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution